Handbook of Comparative and

Historical Indo-European Linguistics

HSK 41.1
Handbücher zur
Sprach- und Kommunikations-
wissenschaft
Handbooks of Linguistics
and Communication Science

Manuels de linguistique et
des sciences de communication

Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer

Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par

Herbert Ernst Wiegand

Band 41.1

De Gruyter Mouton
Handbook of Comparative and
Historical Indo-European Linguistics

HSK 41.1
Handbook of
Comparative and Historical
Indo-European Linguistics
Edited by
Jared Klein
Brian Joseph
Matthias Fritz

In cooperation with Mark Wenthe

De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-018614-7
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-026128-8
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039324-8
ISSN 1861-5090

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen
앝 Printed on acid-free paper
앪
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Preface
In my graduate school days at Yale in the early 1970’s, I dreamed of being part of a
team that would produce an update and enlargement of Brugmann’s Grundriss, in which
the individual living branches of Indo-European would be traced from their roots to the
modern day. As the years went by, this seemed increasingly to be no more than an idle
fantasy. Then in the summer of 2004, I received an email message from Matthias Fritz
(engineered by Stephanie Jamison) asking me whether I would be interested in participat-
ing in his proposed De Gruyter Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European
Linguistics (not precisely the original title). I asked him what the book entailed, and he
told me that there would be sections on every subgroup of Indo-European, including
chapters on phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon. Seeing an unexpected opportu-
nity to fulfill my youthful dream, I said that I would participate, provided that three
additional chapters would be added in each case: on documentation, dialectology, and,
for those subgroups that had an ulterior history (i.e. everything but Anatolian and
Tocharian), on evolution. A chapter on dialectology of course needs no special defense,
but one on documentation has become something of an obsession of mine. It is of course
not terribly critical for Greek, but for every other subgroup (including Italic, as soon as
one moves beyond Latin), the reader needs to know what the primary sources are and
how to find them. Thus, those looking for somebody to blame for the long gestation
period of this book should probably focus their wrath on me for having added 34 chapters
(27.2 %) to the book in one fell swoop.
Things did not, however, progress smoothly. I, for one, had at that point never en-
gaged in editorial work and had no idea how to proceed; nor was it clear to me what
my role was to be in the project. Years went by as the individual chapters of the book
piled up in my office. In 2011, I received a notice from one of the authors saying that
he wished to withdraw his contribution in order to publish it elsewhere. I saw then
immediately that the entire project was about to unravel and proceeded to resign from
my position. Very quickly I was contacted by Uri Tadmor of De Gruyter and urged not
to resign; I was told that Brian Joseph would be brought on to assist me. By that time,
I had indeed gained experience in editing; but it was not until June 30, 2012 that I
seriously sat down to set things in motion for the production of this book. Ultimately, I
was able to convince De Gruyter that I needed an additional in-house assistant, and Mark
Wenthe, despite his very heavy teaching schedule, kindly agreed to assume this role.
From the date just noted, I have put this project at the highest level of priority,
working at it consistently and placing all my other long-term research projects on hold.
Some chapters were dropped,1 many chapters had to be reassigned to new authors, and

1 These included: Section 1, Genetic and typological relationship of languages, Reconstruction

and linguistic reality, and Reconstruction and extra-linguistic reality; Section 3, National traditions
of Indo-European linguistics in Europe and North America; Section 19, Indo-Anatolian contacts in
the Mitanni Period and The communities of Greek and Armenian. These were omitted for various
reasons, ranging from the fact that obvious authors either declined or did not respond to our
recruitment efforts, to loss of interest in the topic on the part of assigned authors, to a perceived
lack of need for the chapter. In one instance, a contribution was received, but the author left no
forwarding address, and the paper was consequently withdrawn by the publisher.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-202
vi Preface

original submissions in three instances had to be redone by others. The result, I would
like to believe, is the most significant presentation of the field of Indo-European Linguis-
tics since the second edition of Brugmann’s Grundriss, which appeared just over 100
years ago. The two works, however, have almost nothing in common. Brugmann’s book
was deductive, starting with Proto-Indo-European and deriving the phonologies and mor-
phologies of the individual Indo-European languages. This work is inductive, beginning
with the oldest attested subgroups and working toward the most recent ones, from there
moving on to languages of fragmentary attestation, larger subgroups (Indo-Iranian and
Balto-Slavic), wider configurations and contacts (Italo-Celtic, Greco-Anatolian relation-
ships), and, ultimately, Proto-Indo-European and beyond. All of this is preceded by
sections on general methodological issues, the use of the comparative method in selected
language groups outside of Indo-European, and on the history, both remote and more
recent, of the Indo-European question. Many may wonder about the need for the discus-
sions of language families other than Indo-European, but the original title of this book,
since changed, included the phrase “An International Handbook of Language Compari-
son”. While limitations of space forbid anything beyond a cursory glance outside Indo-
European, these chapters will at the very least give the reader an overview of some of
the most important literature on the language groups they cover.
It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of many
others in the preparation of this book. First and foremost, kudos goes to Matthias Fritz
for having conceptualized this project ex nihilo and having recruited the vast majority
of its authors. To my two active collaborators, co-editor Brian Joseph and editorial assis-
tant Mark Wenthe I would like to express my deepest appreciation. Both of them read
and commented upon every paper and thereby insured that each chapter was seen by
three pairs of eyes in addition to those of the author. To my former M.A. student Julia
Sturm, I owe more than I can express for her uncanny ability to answer, virtually without
exception and with startling speed, my bibliographical queries, particularly with regard
to tracking down first names of authors, editors rendered anonymous under the rubric
“et al.”, and places and houses of publication. To a string of graduate assistants, including
Marcus Hines, Nick Gardner, and Joseph Rhyne, I owe thanks and appreciation for
having assembled master lists of references cited in the book, first by section and then
further integrating these into one consolidated list. I am confident that the final, pruned
version, in whatever form it may ultimately be disseminated, will prove valuable, not
least as an up-to-date bibliographical resource on Indo-European Linguistics.
I also wish to thank all the other 120 contributors for the cooperation and patience
they have shown as this complex operation has unfolded. I know that most would have
liked to see this book become a reality years ago.
Finally, beyond editorial preparation, there is of course the actual production of this
book. I am here indebted first to Uri Tadmor for having confidence in me and providing
me with the assistance I needed to bring this project to fruition. Next, my most heartfelt
thanks goes to Barbara Karlson for keeping on top of this enterprise and serving as my
first contact on all matters of detail concerning publication. As the “voice” at the other
end of the line, she has helped to insure that this project stayed on track.

Jared Klein, Athens, GA (USA)

Contents

Volume 1
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

I. General and methodological issues

1. Comparison and relationship of languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Language contact and Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Methods in reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. The sources for Indo-European reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. The writing systems of Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Indo-European dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7. The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
8. The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

II. The application of the comparative method in selected

language groups other than Indo-European
9. The comparative method in Semitic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
10. The comparative method in Uralic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
11. The comparative method in Caucasian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
12. The comparative method in African linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
13. The comparative method in Austronesian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
14. The comparative method in Australian linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics

15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language
relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings,
establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the
20 th century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

IV. Anatolian
19. The documentation of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
20. The phonology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
21. The morphology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
viii Contents

22. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

23. The lexicon of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
24. The dialectology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

V. Indic
25. The documentation of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
26. The phonology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
27. The morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
28. The syntax of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
29. The lexicon of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
30. The dialectology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
31. The evolution of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

VI. Iranian
32. The documentation of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
33. The phonology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
34. The morphology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
35. The syntax of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
36. The lexicon of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
37. The dialectology of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
38. The evolution of Iranian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608

VII. Greek
39. The documentation of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
40. The phonology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638
41. The morphology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654
42. The syntax of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
43. The lexicon of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695
44. The dialectology of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710
45. The evolution of Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717

Volume 2
VIII. Italic
46. The documentation of Italic
47. The phonology of Italic
48. The morphology of Italic
49. The syntax of Italic
50. The lexicon of Italic
Contents ix

51. The dialectology of Italic

52. The evolution of Italic

IX. Germanic
53. The documentation of Germanic
54. The phonology of Germanic
55. The morphology of Germanic
56. The syntax of Germanic
57. The lexicon of Germanic
58. The dialectology of Germanic
59. The evolution of Germanic

X. Armenian
60. The documentation of Armenian
61. The phonology of Classical Armenian
62. The morphology of Armenian
63. The syntax of Classical Armenian
64. The lexicon of Armenian
65. The dialectology of Armenian
66. The evolution of Armenian

XI. Celtic
67. The documentation of Celtic
68. The phonology of Celtic
69. The morphology of Celtic
70. The syntax of Celtic
71. The lexicon of Celtic
72. The dialectology of Celtic
73. The evolution of Celtic

XII. Tocharian
74. The documentation of Tocharian
75. The phonology of Tocharian
76. The morphology of Tocharian
77. The syntax of Tocharian
78. The lexicon of Tocharian
79. The dialectology of Tocharian
x Contents

Volume 3

XIII. Slavic
80. The documentation of Slavic
81. The phonology of Slavic
82. The morphology of Slavic
83. The syntax of Slavic
84. The lexicon of Slavic
85. The dialectology of Slavic
86. The evolution of Slavic

XIV. Baltic
87. The documentation of Baltic
88. The phonology of Baltic
89. The morphology of Baltic
90. The syntax of Baltic
91. The lexicon of Baltic
92. The dialectology of Baltic
93. The evolution of Baltic

XV. Albanian
94. The documentation of Albanian
95. The phonology of Albanian
96. The morphology of Albanian
97. The syntax of Albanian
98. The lexicon of Albanian
99. The dialectology of Albanian
100. The evolution of Albanian

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation

101. Phrygian
102. Venetic
103. Messapic
104. Thracian
105. Siculian
106. Lusitanian
107. Macedonian
108. Illyrian
109. Pelasgian
Contents xi

XVII. Indo-Iranian
110. The phonology of Indo-Iranian
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian

XVIII. Balto-Slavic
114. Balto-Slavic
115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic
116. The morphology of Balto-Slavic
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic
118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean Period

XX. Proto-Indo-European
121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European
124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European

XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European

125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European
566 VI. Iranian

Narten, Johanna (ed.)

1975−1976 Karl Hoffmann. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Reichelt, Hans
1909 Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.
Sadovski, Velizar
2008 Einleitendes zum Periodenbau und einigen figurae per ordinem im Avesta und Veda. In:
Markus Ritter, Ralph Kauz, and Birgitt Hoffmann (eds.), Iran und iranisch geprägte
Kulturen. Studien zu Ehren von Bert G. Fragner; überreicht an seinem 65. Geburtstag.
(Beiträge zur Iranistik 27). Wiesbaden: Reichert, 242−255.
Samvelian, Pollet
2012 Grammaire des prédicats complexes − les constructions nom-verbe. Paris: Lavoisier.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.)
1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.)
1991 The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great − Old Persian Text. Corpus Inscriptionum
Iranicarum. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.)
2000 The Old Persian Inscriptions of Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis. Corpus Inscriptionum
Iranicarum. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Schweiger, Günter
1998 Kritische Neuedition der achaemenidischen Keilinschriften. Taimering: VWT-Verlag.
Schwyzer, Eduard
1929 Die sog. mißbräuchlichen Instrumentale im Awesta. Indogermanische Forschungen 47:
214−271.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor
2003 Introduction to Young Avestan. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Avesta/index.html.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor
2006 Introduction to Old Avestan. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/OldAvestan/index.html.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor
2009 Old Iranian. In: Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages. London/New York: Rout-
ledge.
Widmer, Paul
2012 Satzspaltung im Avestischen und Altpersischen (mit einem Ausblick auf das Mittel-
persische). Indo-Iranian Journal 55: 119−137.

Thomas Jügel, Paris (France)

36. The lexicon of Iranian

1. Introduction 5. Biological life, life functions, everyday life
2. Sky, celestial elements, and atmospheric 6. Personal and family life
processes 7. Abbreviations
3. Earth, physical and chemical elements 8. References
4. Animate nature

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-036
36. The lexicon of Iranian 567

1. Introduction
This article provides an account of the inherited PIE and PIIr. nominal lexicon in PIr. as
well as of common Iranian lexemes reaching beyond the borders of the individual Iranian
branches and languages. It is based on the lexical database of the present author’s Etymo-
logical Dictionary of the Iranian Noun (Sadovski, To appear1), a component of the
Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (LIEEDS), as well as on a parallel
study of the development of the inherited lexicon, phraseology and (appellative and
onomastic) compounds (based on inherited syntagms and formulae) from PIIr. to Iranian
(Sadovski, To appear2).
The present treatment concentrates on the inherited vocabulary of the different periods
(PIE; PIIr., PIr. or common Iranian) subdivided according to word-fields of interest for
lexico-semantic typology and language reconstruction and taking into account semantic
change such as metaphoric shifts of meaning between word-fields. Collections of materi-
al that are now in print include (etymological) dictionaries such as Cheung (2007),
Schmitt (2014), Rastorgueva and Ėdel’man (2000−2007), and Ėdel’man (2011−2015).
Important for Proto-Iranian are also Mayrhofer (1986−2001) and Mayrhofer (2005), as
well as lexicological bibliographies such as Heidermanns (2005) and Mayrhofer in
Gouws et al. (2008−2013), classics such as Bartholomae ([1904] 1979), Abaev ([1958−
1989] 1996), and the four main compendia on Iranian languages: Schmitt (1989), Wind-
fuhr (2009), Rastorgueva (1981−1991) (continued as Efimov 1997−2008), and Geiger
and Kuhn ([1895−1901] 1974a, [1898−1901] 1974b). Also important are the historically
oriented glossaries of individual Iranian languages and texts. For OIr. these include,
above all, Kellens and Pirart (1988−1991: 2, 195−333), Hintze (1994: 401−470, 2007:
327−367), as well as Kent (1953: 164−215) and Brandenstein and Mayrhofer (1964:
99−157). The MIr. material, if not otherwise indicated, is prevailingly based on the
following sources: for MPers., the lexicographical corpora of MacKenzie ([1971] 1990)
and Durkin-Meisterernst (2004) (also Nyberg 1974: vol. 2 and Back 1978; on the prob-
lematics of a dictionary of MPers., cf. Shaked 2002) as well as the grammar of Durkin-
Meisterernst (2014); for Khotanese, Bailey (1979) and Emmerick and Skjærvø (1982−
1997); for Scythian, Mayrhofer (2006); for Alanic, Lubotsky (2015); for Bactrian, Dava-
ry (1982), Sims-Williams (2000−2007, 2010), cf. also Humbach (1966−1967); for
Chwaresmian, Benzing and Taraf (1983), Samadi (1986), and MacKenzie (1999); for
Sogdian, Gharib (1995), Lurje (2010), Yakubovič (2013), and especially Sims-Williams
and Durkin-Meisterernst (2012) and Sims-Williams (2016a, 2016b). The last decades
have showed an increasing lexicological and etymological activity in the field of NIr.
(cf. now the surveys in Tremblay 2005b, 2008, 2009 and in Kümmel, To appear1, 72 f.
with useful lists of lexical reconstructions pp. 86−102, to which also the present work
explicitly refers for NIr.). For Baloči, issues of etymology are discussed in several works
by Agnes Korn (e.g. 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2009), cf. also Morgenstierne (1932); on
the local variants in Oman, see Collett (1983), on those of Marw, Elfenbein (1983). A
comprehensive dictionary, edited by Adriano V. Rossi and Ela Filippone, is in prepara-
tion at L’Orientale University of Naples in co-operation with the Balochi Academy in
Quetta, Pakistan; and a series of relevant articles has appeared in the (Newsletter of)
Balochistan Studies. Completely differently organized is Mahmoodzahi (1991). For Os-
setic, beside the classical study Hübschmann ([1887] 1969) and the fundamental diction-
ary Abaev (1996) (to be used together with Abaev 1997), cf. Kozyreva (1962), Bielmeier
568 VI. Iranian

(1977), Abaev (1997), and the etymological annex to Cheung (2002: 148−255) as well
as the posthumous magnum opus of Thordarson (2009); on lexical archaisms, cf. also
Gershevitch (1952 [= 1985: 114−126]). For Pašṭō, see the new edition (Morgenstierne
2003) of the classical etymologicon Morgenstierne (1927) by Elfenbein, MacKenzie and
Sims-Williams (reviews: Cheung 2005 and Tremblay 2005a); of historical value is Gei-
ger (1893); De Chiara (2008) corrects a series of etymologies displayed in these works
and offers new ones. The main dictionary of Waxī is Steblin-Kamenskij (1999). For the
Pamir languages, beside the new edition Morgenstierne (1974), we have lots of new
material, especially on Šughnī, in Karamšoev (1988−2005); on Parāči, in Kieffer (1979,
1980). Kurdish in its variants is etymologically documented by Cabolov (2001); on
individual word-families, cf. Kurdoev (1960) and Kurdoev and Jusupova (1983 on So-
ranī), Omar (1992 on Kurmancī), and Karimi Doostan (1990 on the Badra dialect); cf.
also Gülensoy (1994); historically relevant is Houtum-Schindler (1884−1888). For
NPers., beside traditional interpretations of inherited and foreign words in historically
oriented dictionaries or thesauri − above all, Dehxodā (1946−1981) and Steingass
([1892] 1963) − there are the still very useful aperçus of (the pre-Islamic revolution)
NPers. lexicon in Lambton ([1954] 1988) and Pejsikov (1975), and, with a focus on
modernization of vocabulary in the late 19 th and early 20 th century, Belgorodskij (1936),
Hinz (1937), and Lescot (1939); for Tajikī: Rosenfeld (1961); of historical value are the
(antiquated) classical etymologica of NPers. Horn ([1893] 1988; to be read together with
Hübschmann 1895) and Vullers ([1855−1867] 1962), whose volume III is dedicated to
word-families in Persian and beyond.
Beside the “straight” etymological dictionaries, an important source for lexicological
and derivational studies is the reverse dictionaries. For OIr., see now especially Schmitt
(2014: 297−328; important predecessors for OPers. are Pohl 1975 and Hinz 1975: 281−
299, cf. Hinz 1942: 155−160); for O/YAv. see Bartholomae (1979: 1901−2000); for
ManMPers. and ManParth., R. Zwanziger in Boyce 1977: 107−172; limited to the latter’s
“Word-List”). For NPers., Majidi (1995) is an excellent research instrument with rele-
vance to word formation. On the history of classical Modern Persian lexicography, cf.
now Baevskij (2007), an updated version of the Russian edition (Baevskij 1989 revised
by Perry); with regard also to the modern period, cf. Moayyad (1962); on Ossetic lexi-
cography, cf. Kozyreva (1964).
For the etymological reconstructions of PIr., this account uses several special charac-
ters based mainly on (phonetic) values used by the IPA and thus differing from the
traditional designations of the PIr. phonemes concerned − ʦ instead of ć, ʧ instead of č,
ʣ instead of ȷ́, ʤ instead of ȷ̌. The reason for this is the desire to avoid phonologically
ambivalent graphemes (which, moreover, have sometimes varied in the history of schol-
arship) or which may be too overtly homographic with characters used for representation
of PIIr. (whose phonemic or phonetic values are not necessarily identical with the ones
presumed for PIr.). The present author is largely skeptical both about the universal taxo-
nomical applicability of pre-defined, hierarchical conceptual systems and of the compati-
bility of such taxonomies (almost exclusively structured on modern cognitive categories)
with the notional worlds of speakers of ancient language stages. Still, for purposes of
presentation of the Ir. word material, we employ a combination of three widely-used
conceptual systems: that of Hallig − Wartburg (1963; and its modified version applied in
the Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch), the one of Dornsieff (82004, originally
prepared for but not applied in the project of a Greek thesaurus based on Liddell −
36. The lexicon of Iranian 569

Scott), and that of Roget (Kipfer 2005). For the history and the constraints of these
systems, cf. Büchi (1996) and Sadovski (To appear2).
We proceed now to the material of this study of the inherited Iranian nominal lexicon
according to semantic word-fields.

2. Sky, celestial elements, and atmospheric processes

2.1. Inherited lexemes for ‘sky and celestial bodies’ logically also designate heaven
and various celestial divinities of both the Indo-Iranian and the Mazdean(-Zoroastrian)
pantheons. In Iranian, the word for ‘sky, heaven’, Ir. *aʦman-, functioning especially as
a sacred [loan-]word (cf. Schmitt 2014: 139 f.) and prominent also as ‘stone’, has re-
placed PIE *di̯ u-: YAv. asman-, OPers. asmān-, Parth. ʾ(ʾ)smʾn āsmān, Sogd. ʾsmʾn smān.
The inherited designation for ‘star’ is *stār-, star-, stər-: OAv. star-: strə̄m, YAv. star-:
stārəm and, as is often the case in Iranian, has beside it a derivative, *stāraka-, in the
same value: MPers. stʾlk, ʿstʾrg stārag; Parth. ʾstʾrg; Sogd. ʾstʾrʾk, ʾstry; NPers. sitāra h.
Similar to the differentiation in Ved. between sú var ‘sunlight’ and its derivative sū́ri ya-
as name of the sun-god (EWA, s.vv.), in Iranian we find the broader concept *súu̯ar,
suu̯án- ‘sunlight’, in OAv. huuarə̄, x və̄ṇg; YAv. huuarə; MPers. hwl, xwr xwar, and
‘sun’, especially in lexical compounds like *suu̯ar-(x)šai̯ ta- YAv. huuarə.šaēta- ‘(the)
sunlight-bright (one); sun’; MPers. xwaršēd; NPers. xuršēd as well as in PN compounds
like *Huu̯ar-dāta-, *Huu̯ar-farnah-, *Huu̯ar-pāta- (Zadok 2009). A derivative *suu̯a-
ru̯āh, suu̯aru̯ant- ‘with sunlight, sun’ is seen in Digor xor, Iron xur. Of special relevance
is the presence of the celestial elements as divine protectors of the individual days of
the month in the Zoroastrian calendar (Schmitt 2000), seen particularly in PNs. Cf. the
inherited word for ‘moon’: *mānas-, maas- YAv. mā̊ŋhəm, MPers. mʾh māh, Parth. mʾh,
NPers. māh ~ māng, and the derivative *maasi̯ ā- Digor mæjæ, Iron mæj. As a composi-
tional term, we find it in PNs of the meaning ‘protected/given by the moon(-god)’, e.g.
*Māh(i)-pāta- or *Māhi-dāta-. Still more complex is the transfer of the designation of
the social ‘contract’ and the corresponding IIr. deity Miθra to the domain ‘sun’ and thus
also to the calendar. PIr. *miθra- YAv. miθra-; OPers. miça-; Sogd. myδr-, myš-; Bactr.
μιυρο; Yidgha m’īra is attested in a series of theophoric and calendar-related names such
as OPers. *Miça-pāta-, cf. Schmitt (1978, 2000), Zadok (2009: 360 ff.).

2.2. Lexemes belonging to the semantic field ‘atmosphere and weather processes’ simi-
larly designate also notions of mythology and (mythical) cosmology: so *u̯āi̯ u- ~ u̯āi̯ āu̯-
‘wind/Wind’ YAv. vaiiō, vaiiuš; Waxi wüy, especially as a divine name *u̯āi̯ u- is present
also as (first) term in theophoric and calendar-related PNs such as *Vāyu-kr̥ta-. The
appellative *u̯āta- ‘wind’ YAv. vāta-; MPers. wʾt, wʾd; Sogd. wʾt wāt; Khotan. bātä;
NPers. bād is largely used both in direct and metaphoric value, also in PNs such as
*Vatāspa- ‘whose horse(s) is/are (like) the wind’. Further common Iranian lexemes of
this semantic sphere are ‘air’: *antaru̯āʣa- MPers. ʾndrwʾd andarwād, ʾndrwʾz andarwāz,
Parth. ʾndrwʾz andarwāz and ‘storm’: *branθi- Khotan. branthä, brīnthu; brīnthä. Of IIr.
origin is ‘cloud; sky’: *abra- YAv. aβra-; OPers. *abra- (also in compound PNs like
*Abra-dāta- and *Abra-kāma-); MPers. ʾbl, ʾp̄l abr; NPers. abr; Bal. haur, hawar and
‘cloud’, with the connotation of ‘wetness, humidity’: *mai̯ ga-, mai̯ gā- YAv. maēɣa-,
570 VI. Iranian

MPers. mēɣ, Parth. myg, NPers. mēɣ. The IE word for ‘cloud/heaven’ remains in Iranian
in the sense of ‘humidity’: *nabas- OAv. nabåsca; Pṣ̌ t. naw; Yidgha nīv, novo, cf. ‘damp,
humid’: *nafta- MPers. npt naft, NPers. naft, also naftaka- BuddhSogd. nβtʾk, nβtcʾ(h);
ManSogd. nβtyy navdē. The words for various weather processes reach back to PIE, e.g.
in the case of the word-family ‘snow’: *snai̯ xr- MPers. snyhl snēxr. From the same root
for ‘to (fall and) stick’ (Hoffmann 1965), we have *sniga-/snai̯ ga- Šuγn. žiniǰ, Xufi
žinīǰ, Bartangī žinīǰ; suffixed: *snai̯ ʤaka- MPers. snyck snēzag. Of shared heritage be-
tween OInd. and OIr. is the word for ‘hail’: *ʣrādunī- OPers. *drādunī-; Sogd. ẓyδn;
Baškardī dərāyén, drāʾen. A specific Iranian term for ‘hail’ is also *fi̯ asu- YAv. fiiaŋ-
humca, the verb ‘to hail’ being *fi̯ asu̯a- YAv. +fiiaŋhuṇtaēca. Another conceptual group
exhibits (PIr.) specializations of meaning, as in the case of the original ‘rain’-word:
*u̯āra- Waxi wür, *u̯afrā̆- ‘snow; cold’: YAv. vafra; MPers. wpl, wpr wafr; Parth. wfr;
KurdSor. wafer; Yaghn. waf(i)r; Pṣ̌ t. w’āwra; *mai̯ θa- ‘snow’: Digor met, Iron mit; and
*iʦu-/isʦu- ‘icy’: YAv. isu- and *iʦuka- ‘frost’: Pṣ̌ t. as’ay.

3. Earth, physical and chemical elements

3.1. Among the lexemes designating ‘earth forms, shapes, and configurations’, PIr. in-
herited the most important IE words for ‘earth’: (1) *ʣam-, ʣā-, ʣm- YAv. zā̊, ząm,
zəm-, zəmi, developing derivatives such as *ʣamīkā- Bactr. ζαμιγο, ζαμιιο; MPers. zmyk,
zmyg, zmyq zamīg, *ʣamadā- Yazgh. zəmāδ, Xufi zimāδ, Šuγn. zimāδ, and *ʣamaxā-
Digor zænxæ, Iron zæxx, (2) *būmi- YAv. būmi-, Sogd. βwmh (Ved. bhū́mi-), and (3)
from an original metaphor ‘the broad one’, the subst. fem. *pərθu̯ī- YAv. pərəθβīm (Ved.
pr̥thivī́-). With the specific connotation of ‘ground’, we find PIr *budna- inherited from
PIE, mostly in the form *buna- OAv. būna-; YAv. būna-; Parth., MPers. bwn, bun;
NPers. bun; also the derivative *budnaka- Bactr. βοναγο. The substance ‘dust, earth’
figures in IIr. *(H)āsa-ka- (cf. Ved. ā́sa-) MPers. hʾk’, NPers. xāk, Bal. hāk. The most
significant main relief forms are genuine Iranian words, including ‘mountain’: *gari-
YAv. ga iri-, Sogd. ɣr-, Bactr. γαρο, Yaghn. ɣar, Pṣ̌ t. ɣar. Also *kau̯fa(h)- YAv. kaofa-;
OPers. kaufa; MPers., Parth. kwf kōf; NPers. kōh; Zaz. ko. The OIr. word is reflected
also in PNs of the type *Kaufa-zāta- ‘mountain-born’ (Zadok 2009: 337). There is a
clear affinity of metaphoric and metonymic transitions between the semantic fields ‘relief
form’ and ‘body part’ (cf. 4.1.); thus, ‘mountain saddle’ > ‘shoulder’: *kau̯faka- MPers.
kwpk kōfag, Bal. kōpag; ‘ear’ > ‘slope’: *karnā- Roshani čāwn; > ‘forehead; peak’ (cf.
5.1.): *ʧakāta- MPers. ckʾt’ čagād, Sogd. ckʼt, KurdKurm. čîya; ‘neck, mane’ > ‘hill’:
*grīu̯aka- MPers. glywk grīwag, NPers. girīwa. Various derivatives of inherited stems
for ‘deep’ come to mean ‘deepening, valley’: *ʤamfnu- YAv. jąfnu- or ‘side, edge,
shore’: *ʣambaka- ChrSogd. zmpy, zmpw zambē, zambō. The most widespread lexeme
for ‘valley’ within Iranian is *dara- MPers. dr; Sogd. δryh; Khotan. dara-; Munji daro,
dara; in other NIr. languages it means ‘ravine’: Parāči dūr, Sariqoli δer. Geographical
forms met by Iranians only later in their migrations still exhibit common Iranian designa-
tions, e.g. ‘ice’: *ai̯ xa- YAv. aēxa-, Chwrsm. ʾyx-, Digor ex, Iron ix, Yaghn. īx, Parāči īx
(NPers. yax) or at least designations common to (certain) NIr. languages. Thus, ‘glacier’:
*i̯ aʣā- Sariqoli yoz, Waxi yaz, Kati yūc.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 571

3.2. In the semantic domain of ‘waters and water-basins’, the two main words for ‘river,
water’ are *dānu- YAv. dānu-, Alan. *δānu-, Oss. don and *srau̯tas- OPers. rautah-;
YAv. θraotō.s°; MPers., Parth., Sogd. rwd rōd; NPers. rōd; Bal. rōt. The nomen actionis
‘course’, *taxman-, develops the meaning ‘current (water)’: YAv. taxman-; Bactr. ταχμο,
just as is the case with *tāʧi- Khotan. ttāji/ttāja. The combination of the last two lexical
elements appears in compounds like ‘course of a river’: *srau̯tas-tāʧ- YAv. θraotō.stācō,
θraotō.stācąm, or *srau̯tas-tāka- MPers. lw(t)stʾk rōstā, rōstāgą; Parth. rwdystʾg; NPers.
rōstā. For ‘large river’ one finds *paruta- YAv. pauruta-, Chwrsm. pwrd, Digor ford,
Iron furd. The semanteme ‘source, fountain’ is closely related to the notion of ‘digging
up’ artificial fountains: *xā-/xaʾ- YAv. xå, xąm. *xāxā- BuddhSogd. ɣʾɣh, xʾx; Khotan.
khāha, khāhe; in the meaning ‘source’: *xākā- Ormuri xākɔ, Yaghn. xok as well as
*xānii̯ a- YAv. xąniia-, MPers. hʾn’, Parth. xʾn, Bal. kān. Also *xānii̯ aka- NPers. xānī,
Bal. kānīg. A shared concept for ‘bay’ and ‘shore, bank’ goes back to a semanteme
‘cut’: Ir. *kárta- meaning ‘shore’ in YAv. kaṣ̌a- and ‘riverbank’ in *pati-kartā- Xufi
piǰōg, Roshani piǰōg. The basic inherited concepts for ‘standing water basins’ are ‘sea,
pond’: *ʣrai̯ as- YAv. zraiiō, Yazgh. ɣ̌ůy; ‘lake, sea’: *u̯ari- YAv. vairi-, MPers. wl war;
and ‘fountain; pond’: *ʧāt- YAv. cāiti-, Sogd. cʾt čāt, Bactr. σαδο, MPers. čāh, Bal. čāt,
NPers. čāh. For geographical terms and (para)toponyms, see Rozova and Savina (1975)
with Tajik evidence. Characteristic of the wordfield ‘water (as substance)’ are, beside
the obviously ancient root-noun *ā́p-/*ap- ‘water’ (meaning also ‘current of water, river,
etc.’), the various words for ‘drop’: *ʦrasʧa- YAv. srasciṇtaē°, Chwrsm. cš-, Pṣ̌ t. cac-,
also *ʦraska- Parth. srsk srask, MPers. sl(y)šk’ srešk, NPers. sirišk, Waxi x̌ak and
*ʦrakā- Sariqoli x̌ōk-, x̌ikt. Here belongs also the notion of ‘foam’: *kafa-, kafā- YAv.
kafa-, MPers. kp kaf, NPers. kaf, Bal. kap, Yaghn. xaf(a). The inherited word (PIIr.
*phaiman-) is attested in the substantivized derivatives *fai̯ mna- NPers. fīn and
*fai̯ mnakā- perhaps in Sogd. pymʾkh, NPers. fīnak, Digor finkæ, Iron fynk.

3.3. The sphere of ‘earth characteristics, terrains, and their constitution’ includes, e.g.
‘stone’: *aʦan- YAv. asān-, OPers. asā, Bactr. αþνη-. Old and widespread is also *aʦan-
ga- YAv. asəṇga-, OPers. aθanga-, Parth. ʾsn(n)g asang, Bactr. ασαγγε, Yaghn. sank(a),
KurdKurm. seng. Related to the family of ‘mountain’ is the notion of ‘stone heap’:
*gāri̯ a- Waxi ɣ̌or ~ ɣor. Of more recent age are *grai̯ a- ‘clay’ Yidgha ɣuroi, Šuγn. ǰirāy
and *ʦikā- ‘gravel’ OPers. θikā-, also in NIr.; from its root is built *ʦikatā- ‘sand’ Sogd.
šykth, MPers. sygd, Digor sigit, Iron syǧyt.

3.4. Words for ‘minerals (esp. metalloids) and (physical) processes related to them’
generally belong to younger lexical strata, showing mostly inner-Iranian correspon-
dences. Thus, ‘salt’ (cf. 4.5.): *namadā- Khotan. namva, namve; another derivative is
*namaθkā- Parth. nmydk, Sogd. nmʾδkh, NPers. namak, Sanglechi nəmēɣδ. Words like
‘charcoal’: *nigāra- Šuγn. nižōr; Xufi, Roshani nižůr lead to the subject of physical
processes like ‘to burn’ *θau̯a-/θau̯i̯ a- : θuta-: Chwrsm. θw-: θw(y)d; Bartangī θīw-: θud,
θad; Waxi θaw-, θit : θət and ‘burning, flame’: *θāu̯a- Sogd. pr-δʾw, Chwrsm. θʾw θāw,
Ashkun dau, Waigali dāu. While this last word is particularly widespread in Iranian, we
also find the two main inherited words for ‘fire/Fire’ as phenomenon and as deity, viz.
*agni- in OIr. PNs such as YAv. Dāštāɣni-, OPers. *Agni-farnah- and continuing up to
NIr., if Yazgh. aɣnág ‘flintstone’ is to be interpreted as ‘fire-stone’. The fundamental
(I)Ir. term for ‘fire/Fire’, however, remains *ātər-, āθr- YAv. ātarš, ātrəm, āθrō; Parth.
572 VI. Iranian

ʾtrw; Bactr. αδορ- ~ αϑþο; MPers. ʾtwr, ʾdwr ādur; NPers. āðar, [ātaš]; Oss. art. Further
regional concepts in the sphere of ‘fire’ are *angāra- Ashkun, Waigali aṅā́; Kati aṅā́
and *θau̯nā- Digor tunæ ‘beam’. Derivatives of the word for ‘fire’ mean not only ‘igne-
ous’ but also ‘ash’: *āθrii̯ a- ~ *āθəri̯ a- ~ *ātəri̯ a- YAv. ātriia-; Khotan. āhära-; Roshani,
Bartangī, Roshorvi aθēr; also *āθraka- Sogd. ʾʾšʾk, ʾʾšʾy āśe. But the special term for
‘ash(es)’ is *pānsnu- YAv. pąsnu-, Khotan. phānä, Digor funuk, Iron fænyk. Iranian
exhibits two old words for ‘smoke’: *dūta- YAv. dūta-; Parth., MPers. dwd dūd;
Chwrsm. δwd; NPers. dūd; Šuγn. δūd and also *dūmá- Khotan. dumä, duma-; Ashkun
dūm. OPers. in particular displays several designations for precious stones, cf. Bleich-
steiner (1930) and now Schmitt (2014). Semantic shifts may play a role here, as in the
word for ‘pearl’: *mudrā- Bactr. μολρο, Khotan. mūra (Ved. mudrā-) meaning also
‘precious stone’.

3.5. Metals: The word *ʣarani̯ a- that, as shown by Ved. híraṇya-, might in IIr. have
originally possessed a larger meaning of ‘noble metal’ (cf. Rau 1974), is clearly focused
on the semanteme ‘gold’ (also ‘golden’): YAv. zaraniia-; OPers. daraniya-; Sogd. zyrn,
zyn; Bactr. ζαρο; Digor zærijnæ; Iron zærin. Its main derivative, with the material adjec-
tive suffix, is *ʣaranai̯ na- ‘golden’: YAv. zaranaēna-; MPers. zlyn’, zryn zarrēn; NPers.
zarrīn. The inherited lexeme for ‘silver’ is *ə/arʣata-: YAv. ərəzata-, OPers. a ̣rdata-,
Chwrsm. ʾžyd; Digor ærzæt, Iron ærzæt. The metal ‘copper’, derived from a color word
for ‘reddish’, is called in Iranian *rau̯da- MPers. lwd, rwy; NPers. rōy; Bal. rōd. The
derivational base of the main words for ‘iron’ is *aʦu̯an- ~ aʦun-, contained in ‘iron’
(> ‘ploughshare’ by synecdoche): *aʦu̯ana- Digor æfsæn, Iron æfsæn. Further deriva-
tives of the same stem in the meaning ‘iron’ are: *aʦu̯ani̯ a- Chwrsm. ʾspny, spny
(ə)spanī; Khotan. hīśśana-; Šuγn. sipin; Waxi (y)išn, and *āʦu̯ani̯ ā- MPers. ʾsyn āsen;
Munji yūspən. Also *āʦuna- Parth. ʾswn āsun, MPers. ʾ(ʾ)hwn āhun; NPers. āhan, Talishi
osыn. ‘Made of iron’ is *aʦu̯an(i̯ )ai̯ naka- BuddhSogd. ʾspnʾynʾy, ʾspynynch; ManSogd.
ʾspnyn(y); ChrSogd. spnync spənēnē, spənēnč. On the designations for metals in Ossetic,
cf. Joki (1962).

4. Animate nature
4.1. Plants: General concepts concerning subdivisions and parts of plants, which then
develop the usual metaphoric connotations and phraseological contexts (‘roots of evil’,
‘fruits of work’, etc.), mostly go back to PIIr. and PIE lexemes. This is especially true
of the various elements of plants such as ‘root’: *rau̯taka/rau̯θaka- Bal. rōtag (borrowed
in Brahūi as rōtk), ‘fruit’: *bara(ka)- Sogd. βrʼk, βryy, bry, brw varē; Chwrsm. βrk, and
the two words for ‘leaf’: *parna- YAv. parəna-; Sogd. prn; MPers. pl, pr parr; Kurd-
Kurm. p her̄ ; NPers. parr (together with the derivative *parnaka- Parth. prg parrag) and
*u̯arka- YAv. varəka-; MPers. wlg, włg warg; KurdKurm. belg; Gīlakī bərg; NPers.
barg, with derivative *u̯arkara- Parth. wrgr wargar, Sogd. wrkr, Khotan. bāggara-. The
word for ‘bud’, *tau̯ka- Digor tog, Iron tug, Yidgha tūga, develops the metaphoric
meaning ‘blood’ (5.1.3.), just like the archaic word for ‘bough, branch’ also means
‘antlers’ (5.1.): *k͡ɕāxā- / k͡ɕākā- Ved. śā́khā- < PIIr. *(t)ćākhā-; for Iranian, see MPers.
šʾk’ šāg ~ šʾhʾn šāxān; specialized for ‘branch’ is *ʧangā- NPers. čang, Pṣ̌ t. c’ānga. Also
36. The lexicon of Iranian 573

of PIIr. origin is *rudmii̯ a- ‘sprouting’ YAv. uruθmiia- < *rud hmiya-. Further elements
of plants provide a bridge to the conditio humana; thus, the diverse words for ‘seed’
(5.2.): *bīʣaka- Sogd. βyzʾk vīzē < PIIr. *bīja-, Ved. bīja-. *ʧiθra- (O/YAv. ciθra-,
OWIr. ciça-; richly attested in MIr. and NIr.) means ‘(human) seed’ and thence ‘descent,
origin, nature’ (5.2.); cf. its derivative *ʧiθraka- Parth. cyhrg čihrag, MPers. cyhlk čih-
rag, NPers. čihra. The connotations of ‘seed(s)’ and ‘genus’ (5.2.) are visible in *tau̯x-
man- YAv. taoxma; Parth. twxm, Bactr. τοχμανο, Yaghn. taxm, NPers. tuxm.
The names of (cultural) plants in Modern Iranian languages of Pamir and Eastern
Afghanistan have been the object of exemplary studies such as Schapka (1972a) and
Steblin-Kamenskij (1982); the quota of inherited (I)Ir. notions is very high, reflecting
the already generic categories of concepts like ‘grain, corn’ (5.2.): *dānā- Šuγn. δůn;
Xufi, Roshani δōn and its derivative *dānaka- ‘seed, seed(ling)s’ Yazgh. δan’āg, Šuγn.
δůnǰ, also NPers. dāna. In competition with the common IE word for ‘grass’, *tərna-
MPers. tlk; Khotan. ttarrä, ttarre, is *margii̯ ā- ‘grass’, a feminine substantivation of an
appurtinative adj. derived from *margā-, whose meaning in Iranian is ‘meadow, grass,
woods’ (rather than ‘road’, as in Indic).
The continuant of the PIE word for ‘wood, tree’ is *dāru- YAv. dāuru-; MPers. dʼl
dār; NPers., Bal. dār, which coexists, particularly in MIr., with its derivative *dāruka-
‘wood’ Parth. dʼlwg dālū̆g; Sogd. δʼrwʼk, δʼrwq ð’āruk; also NIr.: Yaghn. dork, Šuγn.
δōrg. The former word signifies both the material and the plant, while Ir. *u̯an-, u̯anā-,
together with derivatives *u̯anakā- *u̯anāka- *u̯anasika-, is specialized in the meaning
‘tree’ (and ‘wood’ in the sense of ‘forest’). Among the various species, the category of
fruit-trees comprises terms for fruit pervasive in moderate and subtropical zones, such
as *amarnā- ‘apple’, *padka- ‘apple/poplar?’, *gau̯ʣā- ‘walnut’, *nāxa- ‘apricot’, but
also *ərmāka- ‘date(-tree/fruit)’. Shrubs and various bush types are partly described
with terms of a more generic character in the proto-language but with specialization of
meaning, just as an earlier ‘thorny bush’ (Gmc. *wart) develops to ‘rose’ not only in
Greek but also in Iranian: *u̯ard- ~ u̯ərd- (with a deriv. *u̯ərdaka-) in MPers. gwl gul,
Parth. wʾr, Sogd. wrd warδ, NPers. gul, borrowed via Turkic into SSlav. and other Euro-
pean languages. Of OIr. attestation are lexemes like ‘ivy’: *θanū- YAv. θanuuas-ca, cf.
NPers. san, while ‘blackcurrant’: *ʤanata- is limited to Bajui ɣ̌inīd, Xufi ɣ̌enūd. Such
plant names form interesting isoglosses, e.g. *dramna- ‘a shrub, wormwood’, attested
in WMIr.: MPers. dlmnk, NPers. dirmana, shows up in Yaghn. dirawna and in the Pamir
languages: Ishk. dərəm; Munji lərīvä(n); Šuγn., Xufi, Roshani, Bartangī cūδm.
Beside the more generic concepts for ‘grain, corn’ cited above, cereals are represented
by common Iranian lexemes such as *arʣana- ‘millet’ and *kaʦaka- ‘barley’. The word
*i̯ au̯a-, so well attested in the last meaning in Indic, has undergone semantic broadening
to ‘grain’, in which value it is employed in competition with or parallel to *ʤāra- of
the same meaning. Beside various vegetables such as ‘garlic’, perhaps *ʦigra-, other
plants of practical use occur in the inherited lexicon, including prairie and forest plants
spread throughout Eurasia, such as ‘birch’: *barʣā- < PIIr. *b hr̥Hȷ́a- (Ved. bhūrja-) in
Alan. *barzā, Digor bærzæ, Iron bærz, partly in the form fərʣā- Waxi fürz. These
alternate with spatially more limited terms, often adapting old loanwords, e.g. ‘jujuba’:
*ʦinʦitā- Khotan. śīṃja, śiji; Wanetsi sinj’ī; Munji siǰīä or *ʦinkatā- Sogd. synkt-.
Similarly, aquatic plants or those growing close to water, such as ‘willow’: *u̯ai̯ ti- YAv.
vaēti-, Khotan. bī, MPers. wyt wēd, NPers. bēd, Bal. gēt continue well-established IE
words, while *gaʣa- ‘reed; firewood; tamarisk’ is limited to MIr. and NIr. Among the
574 VI. Iranian

medicinal and cultic plants, the word for ‘soma plant’, *anʦu- YAv. ąsu-, is of common
PIIr. heritage, derived from *anćú- Ved. aṁśú-, both Indic and Iranian showing traces of
the semantic specialization from ‘stem, stalk’ to the ‘(soma/haoma) stalk’ par excellence.

4.2. Animals and humans: Both spheres contain notions from the domains of ‘biological
life, life functions, everyday life’ (5.), especially joint concepts of ‘body parts, anatomy;
body secretions’ (5.1) and ‘gender, sex, procreation, birth’ (5.2) of both humans and
animals. Cf. the metaphorical use of *əršān- ‘male, bull, stallion’ (5.2). Such generic
categories come into existence by substantivization of (qualitative) adjectives, together
with semantic change. Thus, the notion of ‘animal’, *ʣu̯ara-, from an agentival adj.
‘going crookedly’; analogously, *mərga- ‘(wild) animal’ → ‘bird’, cf. the shift from
*āʦu- < *aHʦú- ‘fast’ → ‘antelope, deer’, also suffixed: *āʦu-ka-. The same is true of
notions from the sphere of ‘cultivation’ like ‘wild’: cf. *kau̯fi̯ aka- MPers. kwpyk’ kōfīg,
NPers. kōhī, KurdKurm. k hûvî ‘deer’.

4.2.1. Among domestic animals, Iranian of all periods possesses several avatars of the
PIIr. root noun for ‘dog’ (*ć[u]u̯ā́n-/ ćun-) with no essential phonetic change, as
*ʦ(u)u̯ān- / ʦun-: YAv. spā, spānəm / sūnō; also the adjective ‘doglike; dog’: *ʦu̯aka-
YAv. spaka- (cf. Hdt. 1,110,1 concerning the “Persian” word for ‘dog’, σπακα); while
Parth. ʽyspg preserves the initial cluster, as do some CtrIr. dialects (NE, SE) and most
Pamir languages, MPers. sgʾn sag- and NPers. sag exhibit a different isogloss. In addi-
tion, original diminutives like *kuta- ‘dog’ abound since MIr.: Sogd. ʾkwt-y; Bactr. κοδο;
Šuγn., Xufi, Roshani, Bartangī kud, cf. the derived feminine *kutī- ‘bitch; dog’, as well
as *ʦu̯aʧī- ‘bitch’. *gadu̯a- ‘dog’ is largely limited to the Pamir domain.
Just as was the case in PIE, Iranian distinguishes between ‘(small) cattle; sheep’,
*paʦú- ~ fšu-, and ‘large farm animals, cattle’, *stau̯ra-. By metonymic extension, the
root noun for ‘cow’, *gāu̯-, develops the connotation ‘cattle’, as does its derivatives
*gau̯ma- (Digor ɣom) and *gau̯ka- (Chwrsm. ɣwk); on the other hand, the derivative
*gau̯aʣna-develops the meaning ‘deer’ in YAv. gauuasna-; Sogd. ɣʾwzn, ɣwznh; also as
a LW in Armen. gavazan. The inherited word for ‘one-year old’ > ‘calf’ (PIE *u̯et-s-
ó-), *u̯aʦa- Digor wæs, Yazgh. wůs, has already developed the generic meaning ‘calf
(of any age)’, as have its derivatives *u̯aʦa-ka- (Khotan. basaka-), *u̯aʦa-ka-ka- (Or-
muri ɣoskák), and *u̯aʦ-i̯ a-ka- (MPers. whyk, whyg wahīg); but beside the generic word
for ‘lamb’, *u̯arān-, u̯arn- (MPers. wlʾn warān, KurdKurm. beran) with the diminutives
*u̯araka- and *u̯arnaka-, several Iranian languages differentiate between ‘lamb (up to
1 year old)’, *āgara- (Xufi ažor, Roshani ažor) or *āgarī- (Xufi ažær. Roshani ažēr),
and ‘lamb of 1(-2) years’, *san-ʤāma- (Šuγn. anjům), *san-ʤāmī- (Šuγn. anjēm). Fur-
ther small-cattle designations include ‘he-goat, billy goat’: *aʣa- (YAv. azō; MPers. ʾz)
with its derivative *aʣaka- MPers. ʾzg; NPers. azg, as well as *buʣa- YAv. būza-;
MPers. bwc buz; NPers. buz. The latter is the most common term in Iranian, as opposed
to the regionally more limited *tura- ‘goat’ Khotan. ttura pl., Digor dzæbo-dur, Iron
dzæbi-dyr. The designations of ‘young (animal): kid, calf’ come from a semanteme
‘grown up’: *fragāma- (Waxi rüɣ̌um), *fragāmaka-, just as do the terms for ‘young
cow’: *fragāmakā- and *fragāmaʧī- (Šuγn. farɣēmc). Well-known PIE and PIIr. terms
are reflected in ‘male, bull, stallion’ (5.2): *əršān- and ‘horse’: *áʦu̯a- with the derived
fem. *áʦu̯ā- ‘mare’ (beside more regional [Pamir] *bāraʧī- and *mātakā- ‘mare’); on
terms for horses, see Sadovski in Sadovski and Panaino (2013: 7 ff. on Avestan) and
36. The lexicon of Iranian 575

Benveniste 1931). Of IIr. diffusion are *uštra- ‘camel’ and *xara- ‘(± little) donkey’.
*xaraka- (and *xarā- ‘she-ass’) ‘mule, hinny’. This latter meaning appears as a deriva-
tive of both ‘horse’ and ‘donkey’: *aʦu̯a-tara- and *xara-tara(-ka)-. Among the crea-
tures of fields and forests, the large rapacious animals have archaic and well-spread
designations, e.g. ‘bear’: *(H)ə́rk͡ɕa- YAv. arša- and ‘wolf’: *u̯ə́rka- (‘she-wolf’:
*u̯ərʧī-) or a series of names (sometimes tabuistically changed), such as ‘fox’: *rau̯-
paka- (Kurd.), *rau̯paʦā- (Shuγnī group), *rau̯pāʦa- (OPers. *raupāθa-, Sogd. rwpsh
rōp[a]s), but also *rau̯pā̆ʦaka- and *rau̯pi-. The IIr. words for ‘boar’: Ir. *u̯arāʣa- share
the same mythological significance, as avatars of deities of war (such as Vərəθraγna-);
also more exotic animals like the ‘leopard’: *pərdanga- share designations beyond the
branches, cf. MPers. płng palang, Sogd. pwrδnk, Pṣ̌ t. pṛāng. We can even reconstruct a
PIIr. *pića- ‘leopard’ based on Ved. piśá- and PIr. *piʦa- (Kulikov 2009), and *ku-
u̯astra- means both ‘leopard’ and more generally ‘predator’. Some names of aquatic
animals are of IE origin, e.g. ‘otter’: *udrā̆- m./f. and *udraka- (derivatives from the
word for ‘water’) or common IIr. formations like ‘turtle’: *kaʦi̯ apa-, *kaʦi̯ apaka-, cf.
Ved. kaśyápa- ‘id.’.

4.2.2. In the semantic field ‘birds’, beside archaic PIE lexemes denoting associated con-
cepts like ‘egg’, *(H)āu̯i̯ ā̆- (cf. Schindler 1969), or ‘nest’, *āsadi̯ a- (on concepts of
‘bird’, esp. in Old Iranian, see Benveniste 1960), there are many common IIr. terms,
particularly for birds of prey, such as ‘falcon, hawk’: *ʦi̯ ai̯ na- (YAv. sāena-, MPers.
syn, NPers. sī-murġ), cf. Ved. śyéna-. The variation in ‘eagle, vulture’ − *ʧarka/u-,
*ʧarkāʦa- (Alan. *čarkasi, Oss. cærgæs) vs. karkā̆ʦa- (YAv. kahrkāsa-, Chwrsm.
krkys) − bespeaks different ablaut grades rather than tabuistic modifications or adapta-
tions of loanwords. Of IIr. origin are words for ‘feathered game’ such as ‘partridge’:
*kapa-, *kapaka- and *tatar- and ‘pigeon’: *kapau̯tatara-, *kapau̯tikā-. There is a mu-
tual relationship between color denominations such as ‘blue, green’ and bird designations
like ‘pigeon’: if *axšai̯ naka- primarily means ‘(dark) blue’ and then ‘pigeon’, *kapau̯ta-
and *kapau̯taka- are primary lexemes of the domain ‘birds’ that have developed the
connotation ‘blue, green’. On birds in Iranian, see Goodell (1979) and Schapka (1972b
on Persian). The Iranian term for ‘chicken’ is *kárka- (YAv. kahrka-), cf. ‘rooster, hen’:
*kərka-, fem. *kərkā- ‘hen’ with derivative *karki̯ ā- (Pṣ̌ t. čirga). Aquatic and barnyard
birds include ‘duck’: *āti-, *ātikā- (< PIIr. *aHti-).
Terms for ‘fish’ are *maʦi̯ a- (YAv. masiia-, Waigali maċ) < PIIr. *matsya-, Ved.
mátsya-; also *māʦi̯ ā̆ka- (MPers. mʾhyk’, mʾhyg; NPers. māhī) as well as *kapa- (Kho-
tan. kavä/kava, kave; Yidgha kap). Reptiles are represented by ancient terms for ‘snake’
and ‘(primordial) dragon’, such as *aʤi- (YAv. aži-, Yidgha īž), Ved. áhi- < PIIr.
*(H)aǰ hi-, or younger ones, such as *du̯axsa- (in Pamir and Waxi, Sanglechi woxs, Waxi
fuks); mythologically relevant (as incarnation of diseases and demons) is also ‘worm’:
*kərmi- < PIIr. *kr̥mi-, cf. Ved. kŕ̥mi-. Among the various inherited words for ‘insects’,
those that prevail designate primarily harmful creatures (daēva-friendly in Zoroastrian
cosmology) and show a large degree of tabuistic modification in the order of their conso-
nants within the IE languages. These include *fruši- ‘flea’ and *u̯abza- / *u̯abzakā̆-
‘wasp’; cf. also ‘fly’: *makaʦā-, *makaʦaka- < PIIr. *makaćā̆-, Ved. makáśa- and
‘spider’: *u̯arnau̯a- / *u̯arnau̯aba-; an inherited lexeme for an innocent insect is that
for ‘ant’: *maru̯i- (YAv. maoiri-), *maru̯iʧi/a(ka)- (Sogd. mʾwrc), with a permuted order
of consonants relative to its Indic cognate: cf. Ved. vamrá-, vamrī́- < PIIr. *u̯arm-.
576 VI. Iranian

4.2.3. All inherited PIIr. lexemes for ‘human being’ are present in Iranian, starting with
the generic ‘mortal; (hu)man’ (5.): *marta- (YAv. maṣ̌a-), *mártii̯ a- (YAv. maṣ̌iia-,
OPers. martiya-) and including *ʣana- < *ȷ́ánHa- ‘the born one’ (OPers. *dana-, zana-;
Khotan. ysani-), *dasa- (OPers. dahā, Sogd. δx, Khotan. daha-), and the gender-charac-
terized ‘(hu)man’: *(H)nar- (Av. nar-; MPers. nl, nr nar) < PIIr. *Hnar-, Ved. nár- and
its derivatives, signaling concepts for ‘male’ like *(H)nari̯ a- (5.2).
The lexical range of ‘woman’ contains both generic pendants to masculine words like
*ʤáni- (YAv. jaini-; MPers. zn’, zn zan; NPers. zan) and specific terms for ‘female,
woman’ like *strī-/*str̥i̯ ā- (YAv. strī-, Waxi strəy) and *strīʧī-/strīkā- (5.2). Two other
lexical groups belonging here are *i̯ au̯šā, i̯ au̯šan- ‘female, woman’ (Digor wosæ, Iron
us) and *kanii̯ ān-, kanīn- ‘girl’ (< *kaniHan-/kaniHn-) YAv. kaniiā, kainīn-, with the
diminutive derivatives *kanii̯ akā- (MPers. knyk, knyg kanīg) and *kanīʧī- ‘(young) girl’
(Sogd. knc, NPers. kanīz).

5. Biological life, life functions, everyday life

A number of derivatives of the PIE root *gwih3 ‘live’ have survived in Iranian, e.g. the
*-i- abstract / n. act. ‘life’: *ʤīti- YAv. -jīti- (< PIIr. *ȷ̌iHti-), formations with other
suffixes like *ʤīnākā- Sogd. žynʾkh, Bactr. ζιναγο, and especially those with the suffix
-u̯o-, including, with full-grade of the root, *ʤi̯ āu̯a- Bactr. ζαο, ζαοι, etc. (< PIIr. *ȷ̌i̯ a-
Hu̯a-) and especially, with zero-grade of the root, the avatars of the IE adj. *gwih3 -u̯ó-
(on PIE, cf. Klein 1988: 258 ff.) ‘alive, living’: *ʤīu̯a- YAv. juua-, OPers. jīva-, Parth.
jyw- < PIIr. *ȷ̌iHu̯á- (Ved. jīvá-) with its derivative *ʤīu̯ii̯ a- YAv. jīuuiia- ‘belonging to/
necessary for living’ (cf. EWA 1,594 with lit.). The -ro- derivative has the connotation
of ‘lively, vivacious’: *ʤīra- YAv. jī̆ra-, MPers. zyr zīr, KurdKurm. jîr < ePIr. *ʤiHrá-.
The main continuously attested item for the concept ‘dead’ is *mərta- YAv. mərəta-;
MPers. mwlt’, mwrd; Parth. mwrd; Sogd. mrt-, mwrt-; Oss. mard; NPers. murd; Bal.
murt with its derivative *mərtaka- ‘dead; corpse’ MPers. mwrdg murdag, Yaghn. murta.
The derivatives for ‘death’ are either n. act./abstr. *mərtu- ~ mərθu̯- BuddhSogd., Man-
Sogd. mwrδw murθu; Parth. mwrt murt or agentivals, as in Ved. mr̥tyú-: PIr. *mərθi̯ u-
YAv. mərəθiiu-, OPers. -m-r-š-i-y-u /-məršiyu-/. Rarely, they are substantivizations of
-ro- adjectives: *mərθra- Sogd. myδr-, Bactr. μορλο or other formations: *márka- ‘death,
destruction’ OAv. marəka-; YAv. mahrka-; Parth. mrd; MPers. mlt, mrd mard; NPers.
mard. (On ‘mortal; [hu]man’ − *márta-, *mártii̯ a-, see above, 4.2.3) Cf. further *au̯šas-
‘death’ YAv. aošah-, MPers. hwš, NPers. hōš. The notions of ‘age’ and ‘time’ are strong-
ly interconnected in Iranian cosmology and anthropology in the notion of *ʣaru̯ān-
YAv. zauruuan- (cf. now Panaino, To appear); MPers. zarwān; Digor zærwæ, zæræ. For
the meaning ‘old’, beside the PIE Erbwort *ʣarant- < ePIr. *ʣarHant- Oss. zærond,
Iranian uses *kafu̯an-/*kapun- Parth. kfwn kafwan; MPers. khwbn’, qhwn kahwan;
NPers. kahun, kuhan, with derivatives *kapunaka- Bactr. καβογγο and *kafnaka- Parth.
kfng kafnag. On the semantic field of ‘old age’ in Sogdian, cf. Emmerick (1969). For
‘young, new’, beside derivatives of *h2 i̯ u-Hon- ‘young’ (← *h2 ói̯ u-/h2 éi̯ u- ‘vigor, etc.’
below) or *nau̯a- ‘new, fresh, etc.’ YAv. nauua-; Roshani, Bartangī nā̆w < PIIr. *náwa-
(Ved. náva-) with derivative *nau̯aka- MPers. nwk nōg, Bactr. νωγο, Digor næwæg, Iron
næwæg, in NIr. we find *ʦraxta- ‘fresh, new’ Waxi ṣəɣ̌d. PIE *h2 ói̯ u-/h2 éi̯ u-, PIIr.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 577

*Hā́i̯ u-/Hái̯ u- ‘vigor, vitality; lifetime’ > *āi̯ u- YAv. āiiu-, gen. yaoš; Alan. *yāwa; Digor
jawæ; Iron jaw.

5.1. Body parts, anatomy; body fluids: Onomasiological themes, including the role of
metaphoric and metonymic processes, have been explored more in the field of body-part
terminology than in other lexical domains, especially by Filippone (2006; 2010 for hand,
fingers and individual finger names in Ir. and beyond; and 2000−2003 for the fingers in
Balochi); for concepts of ‘head’ and its parts, see Nussbaum (1986) and Filippone (1995
‘pupil of the eye’). Generic terms of anatomy such as ‘body part’: *san-dāman- YAv.
haṇdāma; Yidgha hadamë spread as Iranian LWs, e.g. in Khowar hʌ’dām. We discover
some surprising pars pro toto designations of ‘body, self’, such as *grīu̯ā- ‘neck’ (see
also below); for usual developments like *mərtaka- ‘dead body’, cf. 5.; also, *madi̯ āna-
‘middle of the body, waist’. In this section, we shall distinguish between concepts of
‘body in general’, ‘body fluids’, and ‘biological systems’ within the organism (both of
animals and humans).

5.1.1. Starting with the domains of ‘trunk’ and ‘head’, inherited formations for ‘back,
backbone’: *pəršti- YAv. paršti-, Bactr. (α)σπαρσο, Parth. pwšt, NPers. pušt, KurdKurm.
pišt stand beside specific Iranian ones: Pamir *kamaka- Šuγn. čůmč, Sariqoli čomǰ,
Sanglechi kamak. For ‘tail’: *duma- / dumba- YAv. duma-; MPers. dwm(b) dum(b);
Sogd. δwm, δwnp; Bal. dumb; NPers. dum(b); also its derivative *dum(b)aka- Khotan.
dumaa-, Bal. dumbag. Beside PIr. *pāʣas- ‘side’ YAv. pāzah-uuaṇt-, Bactr. παζο, Waxi
pʉz, Sariqoli puz < PIIr. *pā́ȷ́as-/páHȷ́as- (Ved. pā́jas-), we find in the Pamir languages
*ʣamb(i)i̯ a- Šuγn. zīm(bā́), Yazgh. zā̆m(b) ‘half, side; bottom/behind’. The inherited IIr.
word for ‘belly’, *udara-, is best preserved in EIr. YAv. uδara-, Chwrsm. ʼwδy̆r uðər,
Yaghn. dara and *udaraka- Pṣ̌ t. l’əray; some alternative lexemes are, in both E and
WMIr., *ʤaθāra- MPers. zahār, Khotan. jsahāra-, or, mostly in Pers.: *skamba- MPers.
?
aškamb, NPers. šikam and *skambaka- NPers. šikámpa; in OIr. cf. also *mərʣāna-
YAv. mərəzāna-. A rich palette of semantemes gives rise to the notion of ‘navel, umbili-
cal cord’, also ‘(extended) family, gens’ (Kümmel, To appear2): *nāf-/nāfah- YAv. nāfō
< PIIr. *nāb h(h)- ~ *náb hah-; cf. *nāfa- < *nāb ha- YAv. nāfāi; M/NPers. nāf, and its
derivative ‘navel; umbilical cord’: *nāfaka- MPers. nʾp̄k, nʾpg, nʾfg nāfag; Bal. nāpag;
cf. also the -i-stem ‘navel’: *nāfi- Khotan. nehä; Digor naf(f)æ; Xufi, Roshani nēf <
PIIr. *nā́b h(h)i- (Ved. nā́bhi-).
For ‘head’, the original IE item is alive and well in Iranian: *ʦaras- YAv. sarah-;
MPers., NPers. sar; but the popular term *kamard-/kamərd- YAv. kamərəδa-, which in
Zoroastrian has “daēvic” value, is the normal term for ‘head’ in the rest of Iranian: Bactr.
καμιρδο, MPers. kmʾl kamāl (= NPers.), cf. *kamərdakā- Yidgha kyɛmalɣo; isolated is
*u̯agdana- neut. in YAv. vaɣδanəm. The original notion of ‘(the part coming) to the
eye(s)’, *anīka-, means in Iranian, as in Vedic (IIr. *áni-Hka-) and beyond (EWA 1,73),
‘front’, ‘face’, or ‘forehead’ MPers. anīg; NPers. pēš-ānī; cf. *anīʧaka- ‘forehead’ Bal.
(h)anīčag. A similar vacillation between ‘front side’ and ‘forehead’ is seen in *tāra-
Khotan. ttāra-, NPers. tār (Oss. ‘breast’: Iron tar); the meanings ‘forehead’ and ‘peak’
are embodied in *ʧakāta- MPers. ckʾt’ čagād, Sogd. ckʼt, KurdKurm. čîya. Other words
for ‘front part; anterior, first’ come to mean also ‘face’: *nasu̯ant- MPers. nxwyn nax-
wēn, nhwst, nxw(y)st naxust; NPers. nuxušt; Yaghn. nax. The neutral IIr. word for ‘face’
is *rau̯das- MPers. lwd, rwy; NPers. rōy. Metaphorical connotations of ‘face’ are con-
578 VI. Iranian

tained in the semantemes of words like *ʧiθra- ‘clear, visible; shape, appearance, face;
phenomenon’ O/YAv. ciθra-, Parth. cyhr, NPers. čihr < PIIr. *ćitrá- (Ved. citrá-) with
its derivative *ʧiθraka- ‘face; proof’ Parth. cyhrg čihrag, Alan. cyhrg. Characteristic of
all kinds of body/head parts is the frequent use of diminutives of inherited lexemes; cf.
for ‘nose’ the transponat *nāsaʧi- Sogd. nyc, Yaghn. nays, Šuγn. nε̄j, or the implementa-
tion of words from other (socio)linguistic registers instead of traditional designations:
cf. *u̯ai̯ ni- ‘nose’ Bal. gīn, KurdKurm. bên, with its derivative *u̯ai̯ nii̯ aka- MPers. wyn-
yk, wynyg; NPers. bīnī. By contrast, continuous preservation of lexical archaisms of PIE/
PIIr. age is seen in the two main designations for ‘eye’: *axš- > *aš- O/YAv. aš- in instr.
du. ašibiiā̆, Ashkun aċ’ī, Prasun ižī̃ and *ʧak͡ɕman-, O/YAv. cašman-, Khotan. tceiʾman-,
M/NPers. čašm < *ćaćšman-, cf. Ved. cákṣman-; similarly, ‘eyebrow’ is *brū- YAv.
bruuat̰ .biiąm; Waigali ačī-brǖ < PIIr. *b hruH- (Ved. bhrū́-) < PIE *h3 b hruH- (cf. EWA
2,283), with derivatives PIr. *brūkā- MPers. blwk, brwg brūg; Šuγn. wruɣ and *brūʧī-
Sanglechi vrīc. For ‘ear’: *(H)au̯š-/(H)uš- YAv. du. uši [ahuric], OP du. uši, MPers.
ʾwši(y) oš(i), NPers. hōš < PIIr. *Hau̯š-/*Huš- < PIE *h2 ó/éu̯s- ‘ear, hearing’, with deriv-
ative *(H)au̯šaka- MPers. hwšk, hwšg hōšag; NPers. xōša. While this PIE inheritance
in Iranian mostly developed the meaning ‘intelligence’, the (popular) PIIr. lexeme *gau̯-
ša- OAv. gə̄uša-; YAv. gaoša-; OPers. gauša-; Parth., MPers. gōš; NPers. gōš; Yaghn.
ɣūš kept its focus on the field of ‘(organ of) hearing’; and *karna- YAv. karəna- [daēvic]
< PIIr. *kárna- (Ved. kárṇa-), used mostly to designate the anatomic organ ‘ear’, is well
attested in continuants of the oxytone derivative *karná- ‘having (marked) ears’, Ved.
karṇá- ‘aurītus’; VS: ‘having long ears’ but often means ‘deaf’, e.g. in Sogd. krn, MPers.
kl, ManMPers. qr karr, NPers. kar(r).
Among the words for ‘mouth’, one finds the old -r/n- heteroclitic *ʣafar < *ʣap/
bhar YAv. zafarə, MPers. zpl zafar, NPers. zafar vs. *(°)ʣafan- YAv. zafənəm, especially
in compounds: YAv. θri.-, anu.zafan- (but with the -r- stem, cf. YAv. vīzafār-); from MIr.
on we meet *kasman- ‘mouth’ Chwrsm. kʾm kām, NPers. kām, Oss. kom. Of the el-
ements forming the mouth, the two words for ‘lip’, which elsewhere in the IE languages
are found in complementary distribution, are both attested in Iranian: *au̯šta- YAv.
aošta-, Khotan. auṣṭä < *áu̯štha- (Ved. óṣṭha-) and *labi- Parth. lb; MPers. lp, lb lab;
NPers. lab. The largely (tabuistically) varying PIE versions of the word for ‘tongue’
(and ‘language’) are preponderantly preserved in forms beginning with *siʣu̯°; thus,
*siʣu̯ā- ~ siʣuu̯- O/YAv. hizuuā-, Pamir languages (Šuγn., etc.) ziv, Pṣ̌ t. ž’əba; cf. the
-n- stem *siʣu̯ān- OPers. hạzān-; Parth. ʽzbʾn izbān, ʾwzwʾn, ʿzwʾn uzwān, izwān; NPers.
zabān, and (diminutive) derivatives such as *siʣu̯āka- Alan. *(i)zvāki, Oss. ævzag and
*siʣūka- ‘tongue’ Waxi zik. For ‘tooth; mouth’: *gaštra- Chwrsm. ɣš, Pṣ̌ t. ɣāṣ, Waxi
ɣ̌aṣ belongs as n. instr. ‘means of biting’ to the sphere of the verb ‘to bite’, as does
*gaʣa- MPers. gc-, gz-ytn gaz-īdan; NPers. gaz-, gaštan, and *gāʣa- Zaz. gāz similar
to the semantic variety within the family of PIE *g̑ómbh-o- (Gr. γόμφος ‘pin, nail’) >
PIIr. *ȷ́ámbha- > PIr. *ʣamba- ‘tooth’ Khotan. ysami-*: ysīmä vs. coll. fem. *ʣambā-
‘(row of) teeth’ Pṣ̌ t. z’āma. Otherwise, the inherited word for ‘tooth’, *dant-, is omni-
present, both as heir of the old root-noun YAv. daṇt-, Yazgh. δand (δān) < PIIr.
*(H)dánt-/(H)dat- (Ved. dánt-) and in suffixal derivatives such as *dantān- YAv.
daṇtān-; Parth., MPers. dndʾn dandān; NPers. dandān; Sariqoli δanda/un, *dantaka-
Khotan. dandaa-; Yaghn. dindak, and *dantāka- Sogd. dntʾk, dntʾ; Oss. dændag. For
‘fang, canine tooth’ of both humans and animals (and beings of Zoroastrian mythology),
the term *anʦū̆r(a)- is used, YAv. tiži.asūra- (vs. tiži.dąstra- ‘with sharp tusks’ < *danš-
36. The lexicon of Iranian 579

tra- ‘means of biting’); Sogd. ʾnsʾwr; ʾswr ’ansur; Digor ænsur(æ); Iron æssyr. For
‘notch’, ‘corner of the mouth, cheek’, one finds *sraxu̯a- Khotan. rahā, NPers. rux
‘cheek, face’, Sariqoli rak ‘forehead’, cf. Armen. erax ‘mouth, spout’ < PIIr. *sráku̯a-
(Ved. srákva- ‘tooth, fang’) ~ RV+ sŕ̥kvan- m. ‘(corner of the) mouth, lock-jaw’; TochB
särwāna ‘face’. On the level of inherited phraseology, the IIr. collocation ‘TO GRIND UP
THE [TWO] JAWS’ AVŚ hánū … jambhaya ~ YAv. hąm +zanauua zəmbaiiaδβəm contains
the word for ‘jaw, jowl’: *ʣan(H)u- YAv. +zanauua [du.], Khot. ysanuva, Pṣ̌ t. z’əna <
PIIr. *ȷ́án(H)u- (Ved. hánu- with irreg. h-, perhaps with already IIr. *ȷ́[h]°; analogy?) <
PIE *g̑en(H)u-; derivative *ʣanuka- MPers. dnwwg danūg; Bal. zanūk, zanīk. The MIr.+
word for ‘chin’ is *ʣanaxā- Parth. znx zanax, NPers. zanax; on the relationship between
‘chin’ and ‘knee’, see Narten 1969 [1970]). The inherited word for ‘neck’, *grīu̯ā- YAv.
grīuuā- (daēvic), shows various semantic transitions; on the one hand, with a totum-
pro-parte specialization, to ‘mane’, as in Bulg., Russ. gríva, on the other, to ‘neck,
throat’, as in MPers., Pahl. glyw’ grīw, and even a pars-pro-toto generalization to ‘body,
soul, self’, in ManMPers. gry(y)w and in Parth. gryw grīw. The special lexeme for
‘throat’ means also ‘neck’: *garda- Sogd. ɣrδʾ(kh), Chwrsm. ɣrδk.

5.1.2. For body limbs, Iranian presents the full range of words for ‘arm’: *arma- Sogd.
‘pš-’rm’y ‘with arms behind’; MPers., Npers. arm < PIr. *Har(H)ma- < PIIr. *Hr̥Hmá-
(AV+ īrmá- ‘foreleg’) < PIE *h2 r̥H-mo- and *bāʣāu̯-/*bāʣu- YAv. bāzu-; MPers. bʾcʾy,
bʾzʾw bāzā(w); Parāči båz < PIIr. *b haHȷ́ hú- (Ved. bāhú-) < PIE *bheh2 g̑hu-; on the
common IIr. ritual term − and compositional type − YAv. uz-bāzu- ~ Ved. úd-bāhu-, cf.
Sadovski (2001: 101). Its derivatives are *bāʣuka- MPers. bāzūg, Khot. bāysua-, Digor
bazug, Iron bazyg, the appurtenative > diminutive *bāʣuna- ‘armlet’ KurdKurm. basin,
as well as the word for ‘wing’, *bāʣura- YAv. [snāuuar.]bāzura-, Alan. bāzura-, Bal.
bāzul (also ‘arm’). The concurrent lexeme for ‘wing’ in NIr. is *ʧanga- NPers. čang;
Oss. cong, cæng-; Pṣ̌ t. cāng.
The parts of the arm start with four PIE inherited words for ‘shoulder’: *amsa- (>
amha-), perhaps Khotan. *ama- (Emmerick − Skjærvø 1997: 153 f.); Digor onæ, ionæ;
Iron on < PIIr. *Hámsa- (Ved. áṃsa-), perhaps from PIE *h3 emso-; *ʦup/fti- YAv. supti-,
Khot. suta-, MPers. swpt’ suft, NPers. suft; based on instr.sg.: ʦufti̯ ā- Digor sufcæ, sifcæ;
Iron syfc < PIIr. *ćúpti- (Ved. śúpti-) < PIE *(s)k̑up-ti-; from PIE *sph2 -ii̯ o- > PIIr.
*(s)phii̯ á- ‘shoulder-blade’ (Ved. sphyá-) > PIr. *fii̯ a- we possess only the derivative
*fii̯ āka- ‘shoulder’ BuddhSogd. byk; Digor fijjagæ; Iron fyjjag, fijag; finally, ‘(upper/
fore-)arm, shoulder’: *dau̯š- YAv. daoš-, MPers. dwš dōš, NPers. dōš < PIIr. *dauš-
(Ved. dóṣ-) < PIE *dous-; derivative *dau̯šikā- ‘upper arm’, perhaps in Pṣ̌ t. leča. A fifth
word of inner-Iranian provenience is NIr. *āraʦa- Waigali araš’a. For ‘armpit; bay’,
both *kaša- YAv. kaša- and the prep. government compounds *upa- (/api-)kaša- Sogd.
ʾpkš; Yaghn. kapaš are of PIE origin < PIIr. *káćša- (on prep. + -kákṣa- → cmpd. in
°kakṣá-, cf. Sadovski 2000: 470) < PIE *k(w)ók̑so-/*-eh2 -. Another archaism is ‘ulna;
elbow’: *araθni- YAv. frārāθni-, OPers. ā̆rašni-, Tati arešni, Waxi arə́t ‘elbow, ell’ <
PIIr. *Haratní-, RV+ aratní- vs. RV+ ā́rtnī- ‘elbow’; PIr. *arθn- YAv. arəθnå, in NIr.
cmpds. *-ā̆r(θ)ni- > Šuγn. -ε̄rn. *ʧankada- ‘elbow’ (: *ʧanga- ‘wing’ above) is recon-
structed on the basis of YAv. +ciṇkaδauuatō and Pṣ̌ t. cang’əl, cf. Morgenstierne (2003:
17). The continuant of the -to- derivative of the PIE word for ‘hand’ is *ʣásta- O/YAv.
zasta-; OPers. dasta-; M/NPers., Yaghn. dast < PIIr. *ȷ́ hásta- < PIE *g̑ hés-to-; its compet-
itor, PIIr. *g(h)ábhasti-, coexists in Ved. gábhasti- and PIr. *gábasti- Khotan. ggośtä,
580 VI. Iranian

gauśta; Waxi gawust ‘fist’; also perhaps *gaba- MPers. gw’ gaw, and YAv. gauua-
‘hand’ (daēvic), if it stands for *gaβa-. ‘Fist’ itself is PIr. = PIIr. *mušti- (Ved. muṣṭí-)
< PIE *mus-ti- YAv. mušti-; Khotan. muṣṭu, NPers. mušt, KurdKurm. mist. For ‘palm’:
*(su-)pāni- Munji p’ε̄no, Waxi pūn could be a common PIIr. *pāní- (Ved. pāṇí-) or a
(substrate) LW (in Indic). On the family of ‘finger’, *anguri-, and ‘finger, thumb; toe’,
*angušta-, see now Filippone (2010) with data on individual finger-names in Iranian.
In the domain of terminology for parts of the leg, (N)Ir exhibits a derivative of
inherited *pād- ‘foot’ in the value ‘leg’: *padī-, padii̯ ā- Yidgha p’alo, pol’o, p’ō̆lo;
Munji p’ālo, -a; Waxi paδ. Limited to WNIr. is the variation *nangā- ~ *langā- ‘foot,
leg’ NPers. lang, KurdKurm. ling, Zaz. ling/ning. Of PIE origin are the lexemes for
‘hip’: *ʦrau̯ni- YAv. sraoni-; Khotan. ṣṣūni*, ṣūñä beside ṣṣūñi, ṣūñvā/ṣūñyā; NPers.
surūn < PIIr. *ćráu̯ni- (Ved. śróṇi-, cf. the identical collocation in the cmpd. ‘broad-
hipped’, Ved. pr̥thú-śroṇi- = YAv. pərəθu.sraoni-) < PIE *k̑lou̯ni- and for ‘thigh’: *ūrú-
YAv. *uruca and spitii-uru-, Khotan. hurā < PIIr. *uHrú- (Ved. ūrú-), PIE *uh2 -ru-/
*u̯eh2 -ru-, (cf. Lat. vārus ‘bow-legged’) and *saxt(i)- OAv. du. haxtiiå, YAv. haxti,
MPers. haxt, Oss. aɣd < PIIr. *sáktH- (Ved. sákthi-) < PIE *sokwtH-i- (Lubotsky, To
appear). An Iranian innovation is the semantic specialization of *patištāna- (*)‘support’
→ ‘thigh’ YAv. paitištāna-, Sogd. pčtʾn, Pṣ̌ t. pat’un. Concerning the word for ‘knee’,
beside Narten (1969 [1970]), see Nussbaum (1986) on its IE ablaut patterns: Ir. *ʣānu-
~ ʣnu- YAv. zānu ~ ā žnubiiascit̰ ‘up to the knees’ (vs. cmpds. fra-šnu-, ā-xšnu-, cf.
Sadovski 2000: 466 and 472), Bal. zān, Šuγn. zůn; with derivative *ʣānuka- Parth.
zʾnwg (> Pahl. zʾnwk’ zānūg), ManMPers. dʾnwg dānūg, NPers. zānū; and, with zero
grade, *ʣnūka- MPers. šnwk, ʽšnwg šnūg. Regarding *asʧīu̯a- ‘knee joint?’ YAv. ascu-
ua- ‘shank, shin’ < *ascīua-, Lubotsky (2002) reconstructs PIIr. *Hast-(s)čiHua- ‘shank,
shin’ (> → Ved. aṣṭhīvánt- ‘id.’) < PIE *h3 est- + (s)kiHu-. Inherited is the well-attested
*pāršnā- ‘heel’ YAv. pāšnā-, Khotan. pārrā-, Pṣ̌ t. pṣa < PIIr. *pāršnaH- with derivative
*pāršnaka- MPers. pʾšnk pāšnag, NPers. pāšna; also *pāršni- Munji p’āngyo, Yidgha
p’äṇio, etc. < PIIr. *pā́ršni- (Ved. pā́rṣṇi-) ← < PIE *t(s)pērsneh2 - (Lubotsky 2006 and
To appear) as well as the lexical innovation *na/ipərku- ‘heel, sole’ Sariqoli naburg.
Finally, the semanteme of ‘hoof’ is represented by two word-families: ancient *ʦafa-
YAv. safa-, Khotan. sahä, Pṣ̌ t. swa (< *[s]ʦafa-) < PIIr. *sćapHá- (Ved. śaphá-) < PIE
*skepHo-/skopHo- with derivative *ʦafatakā- Oss. sæftæg and inner-Iranian *ʦumba-
MPers. swmb sumb, NPers. sumb with derivative *ʦumbaka-, Iranian LW in Armen.
smbak, perhaps related to the verb MP swmb- sumb, swptn suftan ‘to bore, pierce’ (cf.
Waxi sərv ‘hole, cavity’ < PIr. *subra- < PIIr. *ću̯ab hra-/ćub hra-), the ‘hoof’ being here
defined from the pragmatic viewpoint of horse-breeders.

5.1.3. Regarding the Iranian terminology for the internal organs, the following para-
graphs will display some lexical highlights according to the individual biological systems
of the organism; on the corresponding secretions or body fluids, see 5.1.4.
Starting with the nervous system and notions like ‘brain’ and ‘spinal cord’ (on
*pəršti- ‘backbone’, see above), a common denotation for ‘brain(s)’ is *mastərgan-/°gn-
YAv. mastərəɣnas-ca, MPers. mstlg mastarg, Wanetsi mastr’āɣze, Orm. mastə́rγ, Pṣ̌ t.
mast’arɣay [Pers. LW?] < PIIr. *mastr̥g han- / mastr̥ǰ han- (AVP+ mastr̥han-); on possible
PIE *mest-(m)r̥gh-n-, see Lubotsky (To appear).
The frequent designations of the concepts of ‘brain’ and ‘marrow’ by the same word
provide a bridge to the semantic field of the musculoskeletal system: derivatives of both
36. The lexicon of Iranian 581

IIr. *mastr̥g h/ǰ han- and its variant *mast(i)- stand also for ‘marrow’, so e.g. *mastaka-
Khotan. māstaa-, Parāči mhastō/u and *mazga- ‘marrow, core, brain’ YAv. mazga-,
MPers. mazg, Sogd. mɣz-, Pṣ̌ t. māɣz’ə ~ māzɣ’ə < PIIr. *masg ha- < PIE *mosg ho-
(< *mostg ho-, cf. Lubotsky, To appear) ~ PIE *mosg h-en- > PIIr. *masǰ (h)án- (Ved.
majján-, with loss of aspiration regular in *žǰ h, Lubotsky 2001: 39) > PIr. *mazʤan-
‘marrow’ Khotan. mäjsā, mijsā. The PIE lexemes for ‘bone’ are continued by *(H)ast-
O/YAv. ast-, M/NPers. ast < PIIr. *Hást(H)- (Ved. ásthi-) < PIE *h3 estH-, with deriva-
tives *(H)astaka- Sogd. ʾstkʾ, ʾstk əstak-; Chwrsm. ʼsty̆k ʼastəg; Khotan. āstai, āstaa-; Oss.
æstæg and *(H)astai̯ na- ‘osseous, made of bone’ YAv. astaēna-, MPers. astēn. The basic
word for ‘rib’ shows old ablaut *parʦu-/*pərʦu- YAv. parəsui, pərəsu-; Waxi pürs <
*párću- (párśu-) < PIE *perk̑-u-, with derivatives of both vowel grades, viz. *parʦukā-
MPers. pʾhlwk pahlūg, KurdKurm. p harsû and *pərʦukā- Digor færskʾæ, Pṣ̌ t. puṣṭ’əy.
Terms relating to the muscular system normally designate its “products” as well; thus,
*snāu̯ar, snāu̯an- < *snáHu̯ar means ‘tendon’ (also ‘sinew’, 7.6) YAv. snāuuarə°, Digor
nawær < PIIr. *snáHu̯ar-/snáHu̯an- (Ved. snā́van- ‘sinew’), PIE *s(h2 )neh1u̯r̥-/-un-; and
*māns(a)- ‘meat’ < PIIr. *mānsá-, *mās- (Ved. māṃsá-, māṃs°, mā́s-) < PIE *mēms-
(o-), mēs- pragmatically stands for ‘muscle mass’, beside the specialized *dərbda- ‘bun-
dle of muscles’ YAv. dərəβδa- < PIIr. *darbh- ‘to tie in a bundle’.
Within the integumentary system, ‘skin’ is designated as ‘cover’: *pau̯astā- OPers.
pavastā- ‘clay cover-film’; MPers. pwst’, pwst post; Sogd. pwst(h); NPers. post < PIIr.
*pau̯ástā̆- (Ved. pavásta- ‘cover’) and, more widely, as *ʧarman- ‘hide, leather’ YAv.
carəman-, OPers. carman-, Khot. tcārman- < PIIr. *čárman- (Ved. cárman-) < PIE
*(s)ker-men-. ‘Leather (± made of goatskin?)’ is called *(H)iʣai̯ na- YAv. izaēna- vs. PIr.
*(H)aʣina- YAv. azina-uuaṇt- < PIIr. *Haȷ́ína- ‘hide, skin’ (Ved. ajína-) < PIE *h2 eg̑-
ino-. The numerous words for ‘hair’ (collective and singulative) include common IE
heritage like *rau̯man- NPers. rōm < PIIr. *Hraúman- (Ved. r/lóman-) < PIE *Hreu-
men-; *u̯arʦa- YAv. varəsa-, ChrSogd. wrs < PIIr. *u̯áRća- (Ved. válśa- ‘sprout’) < PIE
*uolk̑o-; and (MIr.+) *drau̯a- BuddhSogd. ẓw-, Yaghn. diraw; of inner-IIr. distribution
is *gai̯ ʦa- YAv. gaēsa-, M/NPers. gēs (~ PIr. kai̯ ʦa-? Waigali kyeċ, kēċ, Kati keċ-) <
PIIr. *g/kaíca- (Ved. kéśa-; g/k alternation implies a substrate word?) with derivative
*gai̯ ʦaka- Khotan. ggīsaa-. The connotations ‘hair; color’ co-exist in *gau̯na- (Morgen-
stierne 1974: 25 [deriv. of ‘cow’?]) YAv. gaona-, Khotan. ggūna-, Pṣ̌ t. ɣūná < PIIr.
*gauná- (Ved. guṇá-, Lubotsky [p.c.]: Iranian LW in Indic). Beside the metonymic uses
of words for ‘neck’ (see above), the concept of ‘mane’ is expressed by inner-Iranian
*bəršti- Alan. *βarčya, Digor barcæ, Iron barc. Instead of PIIr. *smáćru- (Ved. śmáśru-)
‘beard’, (N)Ir. uses continuants of *upās(a)nā- Šuγn. bůn and *fragai̯ si̯ a- Waxi rɣ̌iṣ.
The IE word family for ‘nail, claw’ (of fingers and toes) includes *naxa- Digor nix, Iron
nyx < PIIr. *(H)nā̆kHá-, Ved. nakhá- (or ← r.-n. *nāx-/nax- < PIE *h3 negh-) and various
innovations, such as (transponat) *nāxun- Parth. nʾxwn, MPers. nʾhwn nāxun, NPers.
nāxun, *nagnū- KurdKurm. neynuk, Zaz. nengū (related to a *nagra-? Talishi nangыr),
*naxara-(ka-) Sanglechi narxōk, *naxau̯ara-? Sariqoli našɛwr. In Iranian, ‘fat, grease’,
as bodily substance and as product, is *ʧarpa- Sogd. crp, M/NPers. čarb, Oss. carv.
In the designations of organs of the respiratory system, for the meaning ‘lungs’ the
word-family of YAv. suši (du.), Khot. suv’ä, M/NPers. suš ‘lung’, Oss. sus/sos (< PIIr.
*ću̯as ‘to hiss, pant’ < *k̑u̯es) replaces PIIr. *plaumán- ‘lung’ (Ved. klomán-) < PIE
*pleu-mon-; for the semanteme ‘chest, breast’, the old word for ‘extensiveness; wide
space’, *u̯aras- YAv. varas-; MPers. wl, wr war; NPers. bar < PIIr. *Hu̯árHas- (Ved.
582 VI. Iranian

váras- ‘id.’) < PIE *h1uerH-es-, is used, just as is *u̯axšaka- Digor wæsqæ, usqæ; Iron
wæxsk; whereas *fštāna- YAv. fštāna-, MPers. f/pistān, NPers. pistān expands into the
field ‘breast, nipple, teat’ < PIIr. *pstána- (Ved. stána-) < PIE *psten-.
Closely connected to this word-field are the terms for organs of the circulatory sys-
tem. ‘heart’: *ʣārd-/*ʣərd- O/YAv. zərəd-, Parth. zyrd, MPers. dyl dil, NPers. dil, with
derivative *ʣərdai̯ a- YAv. zərəδaiia-, BuddhSogd. δrẓy(h), ManSogd. δrjyy, Oss. zærdæ.
Specific Iranian derivatives of an older root show up in ‘blood’: *u̯asun- YAv. vohun-,
Talishi xün; cf. *u̯asu- in YAv. vaŋhu-tāt- ‘blood’, vaŋhuθβa- ‘bloodshed’; VS+ vásā-
‘(melted) fat’ < PIIr. *u̯ás-aH-; for *tau̯ka- ‘bud, blood’, see 4.1. ‘Spleen’: *spərʣan-
YAv. spərəzan-; MP spwrz spurz, spwł spul (< SWIr. *spr̥dan-); Yidgha spərzə. In the
word-field ‘blood vessels’, cf. *rasā- ‘vein’ YAv. raŋhā- ‘river Rasā, Ved. Rasā́-’; with
derivative *rasakā- > *rahakā-, MPers. lhk, lk, rg rahg > rag (=NPers.); Khot. rrā [pl.]
< PIIr. *Hrása- (Ved. rása-) ‘sap, juice (of plants), liquid, essence’.
The inventory of organ names of the digestive system contains, first, general terms
for ‘intestine(s)’ of animals and humans, such as ‘entrails, innards’ (also as products):
*ruθu̯ar/n- YAv. uruθβarǝ, uruθβąn < PIIr. *(H)rutu̯ar-, (H)rutu̯an- ‘intestine(s)’ and,
with another suffixation and ablaut grade, MIr.+ *rau̯tā̆- ‘gut, intestine(s); string’ MPers.
lwt rōd, Bal. rōt, Yaghn. ruta, with derivative *rau̯tīka- MPers. lwtyk rōdīg, KurdKurm.
ruvī and *rau̯taka- Chwrsm. rwdk rōdg, NPers. rōda. The IE name of the ‘liver’ is
continued by PIIr. *(H)iákr̥-, (H)iakn- (Ved. yákr̥-t / yakn-V́-) > PIr. *(H)i̯ akar, (H)i̯ akan-
YAv. (yākarə/) yakarə, MP ykl ǰagar, Bal. ǰagar, Yidgha yēɣən and, specifically in Pamir
languages, *θātā-? Šuγn. θōd, Yazgh. θed.
Terms for organs of the urogenital system include concepts like ‘kidney’, *u̯ərdka-
YAv. vərəδka-, Khot. bilga-, Waxī wultk < PIIr. *u̯r̥tká- (Ved. vr̥kká-); ‘urethra’: *mai̯ ʣa-
kā- Digor mesgæ, Iron mizg; ~ PIr. *(H)miz- < PIIr. *Hmiȷ́ h- (Ved. meh/mih) < PIE
*h3 meig̑h- ‘to urinate’. Of the reproductive system, beside PIr. *gərda- ‘penis’ YAv.
gərəδa- in gərəδō.kərəta- ‘cutting off the genitals?’, limited to PIIr. < *gr̥dá- (Ved.
gr̥dá-), Iranian shows various innovations like *gura- ‘testicle/penis’ Šuγn. ɣur, Yazgh.
ɣər, or the fem. derivative *dumā- ‘vulva’ Šuγn., Bartangī δam, apparently the -ā-stem
counterpart of *duma- / dumba- ‘tail’; ‘penis’, on which see 5.1.1 above.

5.1.4. Logically correlated to the designations of organs is the word-field ‘body fluids,
secretions’. Cornerstones of the inherited vocabulary here are words like ‘tear’,
*(H)aʦru- YAv. asru-, MPers ʾls ars (=NPers.), KurdKurm. asr ~ hêsir < PIIr. *Háćru-
(Ved. áśru-) < *h2 ek̑ru-, with derivative *(H)aʦruka- Chwrsm. ʾšwk əššūg, Khotan.
āṣkä, NPers. ašk, Waxi yaṣk. ‘Milk’, both human and of animals, is *xšīra- MPers. šyl,
šyr šīr (= NPers.); Munji xšī́ro < ePIr. *xšiHrá-, limited to PIIr., *kšiHrá- (Ved. kṣīrá-),
as is perhaps ‘milk, buttermilk’ *pai̯ as- YAv. paiiah-, Munji p’ayo < PIIr. *pái̯ Has-
(Ved. páyas- ‘milk; juice, sperm, life-sap’) < PIE *peiH-os-. Well established within IE
is the lexeme for ‘sweat’: PIr. *su̯ai̯ da- YAv. x vaēδa- (Jamison 2011[2015]), MPers.
hwyd xwēy, Chwrsm. ʾxyδ, Yazgh. x̌ wiδ < PIIr. *su̯ái̯ da- (Ved. svéda-), a derivative of
PIIr. *su̯ai̯ d/*su̯id- ‘to sweat’ < PIE *su̯ei̯ d/*su̯id- ‘id.’. The Iranian words for ‘urine’
coincide in part with those for ‘urethra’ (5.1.3.); thus, *mai̯ ʣaka- Khotan. mīysai, Bal.
mēzag, appurtenative derivative of *mai̯ ʣa- < PIIr. *Hmai̯ ȷ́ha-, cf. Ved. á-meha- ‘reten-
tion of urine’; others contain the semantics of ‘means for washing’ typical of IIr., cf.
*mūθra- ‘urine’ OAv. mūθra- < PIIr. *múHtra- (Ved. mū́tra-) < PIE *muH-tro-, n. instr.,
similar to PIE *muH-dlo- > PSlav. *mūdla- > Cz. mýdlo, Russ. mylo ‘soap’ (~ myt’ etc.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 583

‘to wash’). Among the expressions for ‘excrement’, *gūθā̆- < ePIr. *guHϑHa- YAv.
°gūθa-, MPers. gwh gūh (= NPers.), Yaghn. ɣūt corresponds to Skt. gūtha- in karṇa-
gūtha- ‘ear-wax’ < PIIr. *guHtHa- < PIE *g(w)uH-tHo-, perhaps related to the word for
‘cow’; NIr. possesses *ʦakan(a)- Ormuri (ə)skan or develops euphemisms and meta-
phors like *gau̯-riša- ‘cow dung’ and *dərti- ‘dung’. Isolated is *sixra-, ‘liquid feces’
YAv. hixra-.

5.2. Gender, sex, procreation, birth: In 4.1. we mentioned the affinity of the semantic
fields of ‘(human) seed’, ‘genus’ and ‘descent, origin, nature’ in relation to the PIr.
lexemes *ʧiθra-, *ʧiθraka-,*bīʣaka-, and *tau̯xman- together with its derivative
*tau̯xmaka-. MPers. twhmk, twhmg tōhmag means ‘seed; extended family’, as does
*tau̯xmii̯ aka- in Bactr. τοχμιγο. The “gender” words such as ‘female, woman’, *ʤáni-,
*strī- ~ *str̥i̯ ā-, *strīʧī-/strīkā-, and *i̯ au̯šā, i̯ au̯šan-, as well as ‘girl’, *kanii̯ ān-, kanīn-
< ePIr. *kaniHan-/kaniHn-, with its derivative *kanii̯ akā- and *kanīʧī-, have been
discussed in 4.2., as were the semantic fields ‘man’ and ‘male’, centering around *nar-
and *nari̯ a-, *ʣana-, *dasa-, and *əršān- ‘male, bull, stallion’. Another PIE term, *u̯iH-
ro-, is preserved rather in the axiologically marked meaning ‘man, hero’: PIr. *u̯īrá- O/
YAv. vīra-; MPers. wyl, wyyr wīr; Yaghn. vir < PIIr. *u̯iHrá- (Ved. vīrá-).
The technical term for ‘pregnant’, *āpuθra- MPers. ʾpws, ʾbwws ābus; NPers. ābis;
Bal. āpus, is an old bahuvrīhi-compound of the éntheos type, originally meaning ‘having
a little one (young animal / human child, PIIr. *putrá- < PIE *putló-) “at” (one’s body,
etc.)’. For ‘birth’, one finds various derivatives of the root PIr. *ʣan(H) < PIIr. *ȷ́anH-
< PIE *g̑enh1-, cf. v. adj. *ʣāta- ‘born’ YAv. zāta-, Chwrsm. zʾd, Bactr. ζαδο < *ȷ́aHtá-
< PIE *g̑n̥h1-to-; thus, the n. act./abstr. in -ti-, *ʣāti- Sogd. zʾt zāt, Chwrsm. ʾw-zʾ, and
in -tu-, *ʣantu- Av. zaṇtu- ‘*birth-place, region’ < PIIr. *ȷ́anHtu-, as well as *ʣanθra-
YAv. ząθra- and *ʣanθa- O/YAv. ząθa- < *ʣan(H)tha-. This last word is the derivation-
al basis of the lexeme for ‘descendant’: *ʣanθaka-/ʣanhaka- Parth. zhg, zẖg; MPers.
zhk, zʾhk, zhg zahag; Bal. zahg; cf. with a diff. suffix *ʣanaka- MPers. zng zanag, Bactr.
ζαγγο, Oss. zænæg < *ȷ́anHaka- ‘descendant, species, kind’. As a transition to the next
section, the concept *nišā- ‘birthmark’, e.g. Šuγn. naɣ̌, and ‘distinctive feature’ (of a
gens, especially between the members of a [hero’s/royal] family, etc.) is of relevance
both in (folklore) genealogy and in the context of popular medicine-and-magic related
to birth.

5.3. Health, diseases, medicine, medicaments: The leading expression for ‘healthy’ in
Iranian is *druu̯a- YAv. druua-, Bactr. λρουο < PIIr. *d hruHá- (Ved. dhruvá- ‘fixed,
firm’), with derivative *druu̯aka- BuddhSogd. δrʾwk; Bactr. λρογο, λρουγο, δδρογο. The
abstr. ‘health’, *druu̯atāt- YAv. druuatāt-; Sogd. δrwth, δrwtʾtwh, is personified in the
Avesta into one of the main Zoroastrian divinities, one of the Aməṣ̌a Spəṇtas. The oppo-
site meaning ‘ill, sick’, is displayed, e.g., in *bazda- YAv. bazda- which, if from PIIr.
*b hadzd há- (Ved. baddhá-) (with archaic -zd- preserved, unlike in basta-, where the
productive *-ta-suffix has been restored), shows the connotation ‘bound, fettered’ (by a
[demon of] disease, etc.), also in ‘foul, rotten’: *pūta- Khotan. puva-, Digor fud, Iron
fyd, with derivative *pūtaka- MPers. pwtk pūdag. The inherited PIIr. word for ‘sickness,
suffering, disease, illness’ is *HámH-u̯a- YAv. amaiiauuā- (cf. Ved. ámīvā-); in PIr. cf.
also *nai̯ ʣa- YAv. naēza-, Sogd. nʾyz-kyn; KurdKurm. nēz, Digor nez, Iron niz. Also of
Iranian diffusion is *darta- ‘pain’ MPers. dlt’, drd dard (= NPers.); Chwrsm. δrd; Bactr.
584 VI. Iranian

λαρ-σο; Zaz. derd. The generic (inner-)Iranian concept of ‘wound’ is *ʤanθma(n)-

Parth. jxm; MPers. ztm, zʾhm zahm, zaxm; NPers. zaxm. As an instance of a specific
suffering, the Ir. lexeme for ‘blind’, *(H)anda- YAv. aṇda-, Sogd. ʾnt and, Ormuri ond,
continues the PIIr. *Hand há- (Ved. andhá- ‘blind, dark’) < PIE *h2 end ho-.
With regard to pharmaka, positive or negative, the concept of ‘means of killing,
poison’ is expressed by a n. instr. *ʤanθra- OAv. *jąθra- → paitī.ająθrəm; Parth. jhr
žahr; MPers. zʾhl, zhr zahr (= NPers.); KurdKurm. žahr/jeʾr with derivative *ʤanθraka-
‘poison, gall’ MPers. zʾhlk’, zhlk’ zahrag; NPers. zahra. On the other side of the scale,
the notion ‘healing, remedy’ is inherent in the root O/YAv. °biš-. From this is built a
noun for ‘healer, “medicine man”’, PIIr. *b hišáȷ́- (Skt. bhiṣáj-) and its derivatives, PIr.
*bišāʣa- MPers. byšʾc, byšʾz bišāz, *bišaʣ-ka- OPers. *bišadka-; Parth. bzyšk bizešk;
NPers. bizišk, pezešk; Tājik. pizišk, as well as the vr̥ ddhi-derivative *bai̯ šaʣa- ‘healing;
neut.: remedy’ YAv. baēšaza-; MPers. byš(ʾ)z, byšʾc, byšʾz bēšā̆z < PIIr. *b hai̯ šaȷ́-á-, Ved.
bheṣajá-. Note also the n. instr. ‘means of purification’: *bixθra- YAv. bixəδra- < PIIr.
*b hig-tra- (cf. Milizia 2012). On the Avestan and Middle Iranian Zoroastrian medical
tradition, see Sohn (1996) and, more recently, Delaini (2014); cf. also Hovelaque (1875),
Casartelli (1886), Verrier (1887), Fichtner (1924), and Bana (1951).

6. Personal and family life

6.1. Individual; identity, personality: For the 1st pers. sg. of the personal pronoun ‘I’,
Iranian, like most IE languages, displays continuants of inherited *aʣám OAv. azə̄m,
YAv. azəm; OPers. adam; Tumshuq. asu, azu; Prasun unjū, unzū < PIIr. *Haȷ́ ham (Ved.
ahám) < PIE *h1 eg̑h2 -om and *aʣā́ CtrNE (Kašani, Farizandi, Natanzi) äzä, Pṣ̌ t. zə,
Munji za, PIIr. *Haȷ́ hā́ < *°-aH < PIE *h1 eg̑-óh(2) (Gr. ἐγώ, etc.), both of which represent
univerbations of elements such as PIE *-óm and *-é/óh(2) with a stem *h1 eg̑-. In at least
one case, namely OAv. as-cīt̰ (beside OAv. azə̄), Iranian seems to continue this stem
without a second element, i.e., as if we had PIr. *áʣ < PIIr. *Háȷ́ h. However, the situation
is not completely clear because of the hapax status of this form, and an alternative
interpretation would work with a vowel loss or secondary ablaut in the particle sequence
PIIr. *Haȷ́ h-H-ča. ‘(Of) me, mine’ is PIIr. *mana Bactr. μανο < PIIr. gen.*Hma-na <
PIE *h1 me+ne, cf. OCS gen. mene. There are several words for ‘oneself’, standing for
various original case-forms or derivatives of the stem PIr. = PIIr. *su̯a- < PIE *su̯e-,
namely *su̯ai̯ Digor xe, Iron xi, *su̯atā̆ka- Chwrsm. xdʾk, xdʾc; Digor x wædæg, and
*su̯atas YAv. x vatō; MPers. hwt’, xwd x wad; Parth. wxd x wad; Bactr. χοαδο; Digor
xwæd-; Waxi x̌at. Pronominal adjectives expressing the notion ‘same, identical’ (and
then functioning as derivational bases for abstracts like ‘identity’) are *sama- Bactr.
υαμο with derivative *samaka- Bactr. υαμγο. Prominent among the terms for ‘shape;
face’, close to the notion of ‘person(ality), identity, individuality’, are *ʧiθra- ‘clear,
visible; shape, appearance, face; phenomenon’ and *rau̯das- ‘face, etc.’ (5.1).
Group identity and otherness are primarily denoted by personal pronouns and pro-
nominal adjectives such as *asma- ‘us’ OAv. ahm, YAv. ahma, Khotan. maha, Parāči
mâ, with derivative *asmākam ‘our’ YAv. ahmākəm; OPers. amāxam; Bactr. αμαχο,
μαχο; Oss. max and *asmāʧi̯ a- Wanetsi moš; Ishk. mьš, miš; Sanglechi mič; the opposed
notion is ‘other’, in the appurtenative pronominal adjectives *ani̯ a- OAv. ańiia-; YAv.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 585

ańiia-/ainiia-; OPers. aniya-; Khotan. añä, aña; Tumshuq. añi; Yaghn. áni, ánĕ with
derivatives *ani̯ aka- Bactr. (α)νιγο as well as *antara- YAv. aṇtara-; Bactr. ανδαρο;
Oss. ændær with *antāra- Munji yudū́r, Wanetsi nor.

6.2. Family and relatives

6.2.1. The affinity between the domain of ‘body parts related to birth and growing’ and
‘family, relatives’ is expressed in the meanings ‘navel, umbilical cord’ and ‘(extended)
family, gens’ of the continuants of PIr. *nāf-/nāfah- (5.1.1[end]), as well as in the
common semantemes ‘seed’ and ‘extended family’ of a series of inherited lexemes, e.g.
*tau̯xmii̯ aka- (5.2). Derivatives of the first-mentioned base provide one of the semantic
paths to arrive at the notion of ‘relative’: *nāfii̯ a- YAv. nāfiia-; Pṣ̌ t. nuy, nyāy, cf. also
the idea of ‘next of kin’ as ‘next on navel’, *nabā-nazdišta- YAv. nabā-nazdišta-, contin-
ued in MPers. nbʾnzdšt’, PIIr. *náb hā názdištha- (Ved. nā́bhānédiṣṭha-).
Beside the metonymic use of various terms for ‘house, home’ (cf. also 6.4.) to desig-
nate the ‘(extended) family’, in NIr. the meaning ‘household, family’ is also characteris-
tic of the semantic range of *kāra- Pṣ̌ t. kor (otherwise also ‘people’, esp. ‘army’, OPers.
kāra-, derivative in MP kārīk ‘warrior’) and in Pamir languages is even individualized
as ‘man’, Šuγn. čōr, Xufi čůr. Adjectives like ‘belonging to the house/home, domestic’
as nouns also adopt the meaning ‘head of the household (> hus-band)’. This is seen
above all with *dmānii̯ a(ka)- YAv. nmāniia-, OPers. māniya-, MPers. mānīg; cf. Pṣ̌ t.
m’ena, f. Various innovations such as Iranian *abik͡ɕai̯ θnī- denote the ‘lady of the
house’, NIr.: Digor æfsijnæ, Iron fsīn, beside the ancient term *dmāna-paθnī- ‘wife;
mistress’ YAv. dəmąnō.paθnī-, nmānō.paθnī-; with the same second term, Iranian contin-
ues an old (euphemistic) IIr. compound for ‘concubine’, *sa-paθnī- YAv. ha-paθnī-,
Šuγn. abīn, Xufi abēn < PIIr. *sa-pátniH- (Ved. sapátnī-), PIE (transponat) *sm̥-pót-n-
ih2 -, with derivative *sa-paθn-ānʧī- Sogd. pnānč. For ‘widow’ we find PIr. *u̯idau̯ā-
YAv. viδauuā- (in n.sg. vaδu viδauua ‘widow[ed] bride’) < PIIr. *Hu̯id h(H)áu̯aH- (Ved.
vidhávā-), with derivatives *u̯idau̯aka- MPers. wdpk’ wēwag, NPers. bēwa and u̯idau̯a-
ʧī- Oss. idædz.

6.2.2. The series of principal family members opens with the inherited stem for ‘moth-
er’, *mātar-/māθr-, with usual n.sg. *mātā YAv. mātar-, māta; OPers. cmpd. ha-mātar-;
MPers. mādar, mād; Khotan. māta, mātaru, merä; Tumshuq. māḏar-; NPers. mādar;
Bal. māt. The stem allomorphs for ‘father’ in PIr. are *pitar-/*ptar-/*fθr- (~*piθr-),
n.sg. *pita, all of them in OAv. ptarə̄m, fəδrō, piθrē, n.sg. (p)tā; YAv. pita/ptā°, pitarəm;
OPers. pitā, piça; Sogd. (ʾ)ptr-y, ptr-, pṯ r-ptar-; NPers. pidar; Bal. pit, pis(s); Digor fidæ;
Iron fyd. The development of the consonant clusters in the Iranian word for ‘father’ (and
‘daughter’; for both, cf. G. Schmidt 1973) is decisive for the reconstruction of the treat-
ment of complex clusters of consonants + laryngeal of the type CHCC(-́) in correlation
with the position of the accent. Its derivative ‘father’s brother’: *ftəru̯ii̯ a- YAv. tūiriia-
< PIIr. *pHtr̥u̯ia- (Ved. pitr̥vya-) sometimes means ‘(hostile) relative’.

6.2.3. The direct vertical line of descent is represented by various inherited words for
‘child’: PIr. *puθra- ‘son’ O/YAv. puθra-, OPers. puça-, Sogd. °pδr p(ə)š-, MPers. pws
pus → pwsl, Waxi pətr (in Avestan, hunu- ‘son’ < PIIr. *suHnú-, Ved. sūnú-, is a strictly
daēvic concept, but in OIran., PN *hūnu- has the generic meaning ‘son’) with derivative
586 VI. Iranian

*puθra-ka- ‘(little) son’ Sogd. °pyδrʾk °pəθrē, °pšyy °pšē; Bal. pussag; PIr. *dugdar-/
*dugdr- ~ *duxtar-/duxθr-, n.sg. dugdā ‘daughter’ OAv. dugədar-/dugədr-; YAv.
duɣδar-/duɣδr- < *-gd-, with Bartholomae’s law; Bactr. λογδα, λογδο < *-gd-/-xt- vs.
productively formed OPers. *duxtar-, *duxtā; MPers. dwht, dwxt duxt, dwhtl duxtar;
NPers. duxt, duxtar < PIIr. *d hug hd hā́/d huǰ hitr- (Ved. duhitár-) < PIE *d hugh2 -ter-; with
marked fem. derivation: *duxθrī- ‘daughter, virgin; princess’ OPers. duxçī-; MPers. dwxš
duxš, beside the (N)Ir. derived feminine (of *puθra- ‘son’) *puθrī- Yazgh. pöc, Šuγn.
-bic. Specific NIr. words for ‘daughter’ are built as fem. derivatives of generic concepts
of ‘descendant, child’ such as *fraʣani̯ ā- Šuγn. rizīn, Bartangī razen. The originally
generic meaning of ‘descendant, species, kind’ in such derivatives prevails, however, in
*ʣātaka- Chwrsm. zʾdy̆k, zʾdyc; MPers. zʾtk, zʾdg zādag; NPers. zāda; Bal. zātk, zāxt,
zāk; cf. also above, 5.2, on the word-family of *ʣanaka- and *ʣan(θ/h)aka- < *ʣan-
thaka-. The originally generic meaning of *puθra- (‘young animal; child’) shows up in
the cmpd. ‘childless’: *apuθra- YAv. apuθra-; Pṣ̌ t. bur, b’ura.

6.2.4. Further direct relatives in the vertical line of descent may have both the specific
meaning ‘grandson’ and the generic ‘descendant’; thus, the root-noun *napāt-/*naft-
OAv. loc.pl. nafšu-cā; YAv. acc.sg. napāt-əm, n.sg. napå(sə-); MPers. np nab ~ npt naft
< PIIr. *nápāt-/*napt- (Ved. nápāt-) < PIE *nepot- (no laryngeal, cf. Phryg. nevotan).
The original meaning ‘grandson’ shows up in derivatives, particularly with the -tar-
suffix found with other names for relatives: *naftar-/nafθr-, n.sg. *naftā YAv. naptārəm/
nafǝδr- (Ved. TS. náptār-am / RV+ náptr-), with suffix -(a-)ka- built to the weak stem
*naft-: *naftaka- Bal. naptag or directly to the pseudo-root *nap°, *napaka- NPers.
nawa; cf. also the dvandva-compound *napā-puθra(ka)- MPers. *nabāpusag?, NPers.
nawāsa, Waxi nəpüs (Gershevitch 1963). OInd. and OIr. share an inherited (PIIr. < PIE)
divinity ‘grandson of the waters’, RV+ apā́ṃ nápāt ~ YAv. apąm napāt-/naptar- (most
recently Sadovski, To appear3 , with lit.). To this, the derived feminine is *naftī- YAv.
napti ‘granddaughter’, built not on the -tar- suffix but on the weak stem of *napāt-/
*napt-.

6.2.5. In the collateral line (horizontal and vertical), all main concepts are of inherited
origin. Thus, ‘brother’: *brātar-/*brāθr-, n.sg. *brātā YAv. brātar-; Bactr. β(α)ραδο,
βραδαρο, βραδ(α)ρανο; MPers. blʾt-l, brʾd-r brād, brādar; NPers. birādar; Yaghn. virot,
varot; Pṣ̌ t. wror with derivative ‘brother’s son’: *brāθrii̯ aka- Bactr. βραυριγο, βραρηγο,
as well as ‘sister’: *su̯asār-/su̯asr-, n.sg. *su̯asā YAv. x vaŋha(r-); MPers. xwh xwah ~
hwʾhl, xwʾr xwahar/xwār, with derivatives, especially in NIr., having the semantics ‘sis-
ter’s child’: *su̯asrii̯ ā̆- Munji xur’ī, Yazgh. x wer and *su̯asrii̯ aka- Pṣ̌ t. xwəray’ay; of
inner-Iranian attestation is *su̯arʣa- YAv. x varəzišta-; MPers. hwʾlyst’, xwʾryst xw ālist/
xw ārist (≠ PIr. *su̯arʣa- ‘food’, NPers. x wāl).

6.2.6. Among the concepts for ‘relationship through marriage’, we have already seen
different lexemes for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in 4.2. The notion ‘becoming related by mar-
riage’ can be reconstructed within Iranian as *pagVšaka- (Martin Kümmel, p.c.): Sogd.
pɣšʾk, pɣšy; Bactr. παχþιιο; Waxi bakṣt < *ham-p°. Both PIE words like *u̯ad [h]ū- ‘bride’
Sogd. wδwh; BuddhSogd. wδ-; ManSogd. wδw; ChrSogd. wdw, wd- wð’u; Chwrsm. wy̆δ,
wuδ, wy̆δ; Bactr. ολο, οολο-; Munji, Yidgha w’ulo and later formations like *kāpai̯ na-
‘bride money, bridewealth’ MPers. kʾpyn kābēn; Chwrsm. kʾbyn; NPers. kābīn, kāwīn
36. The lexicon of Iranian 587

(cf. Armen. kapēnk‛ ) belong here. The terms for almost all the positions in this tree of
relatives, whether from the point of view of the wife or of the husband regarding the
partner’s side of the family, are highly archaic. Starting from the position of one of the
married partners, the lexeme for ‘mother-in-law’ is *su̯aʦrū- Sogd. ‛ɣwšh, NPers. xusrū,
Talishi häsы, Munji xúšo, Yidgha xušō̆ < PIIr. *su̯aćrúH- (Ved. śvaśrū́-) < PIE
*suek̑rúH-, and the noun for ‘father-in-law’ is *su̯aʦura- YAv. x vasura-; KurdKurm.
xazūr; Pṣ̌ t. sxar, sxər, xwsar < PIIr. *su̯áćura- (Ved. śváśura-) < PIE *suék̑uro-, with no
vr̥ ddhi, as opposed to Germ. Schwager < *su̯ēk̑uró- ‘belonging to the *suék̑uro-’.

6.2.7. From the position of the parents of the bride and of those of the groom, ‘son-in-
law’ is designated in PIr. *ʣāmātar-/*ʣāmāθr-, n.sg. *ʣāmātā YAv. zāmātar-; Parth.,
Chwrsm. zʾmʾd zāmād; MPers. dʾmʾt, dʾmʾd dāmād; NPers. dāmād; Juh. domor, with
derivative *ʣāmātaka- Sogd. *zʾmtʾk, zʾmtʾyty zāmtē < PIr. *dzā́ma(Htar)- (Ved. jā́mā-
tar-), cf. *ʣāmau̯i̯ a- ‘son-in-law’s brother’ YAv. zāmaoiia-; from the same base, without
the family relationship suffix, *ʣāma- means both ‘son-in-law’ and ‘relative’. ‘Daugh-
ter-in-law’ is *snušā- Sogd. šwnšh šunš’a, NPers. sunār, Bal. nišār, Pṣ̌ t. nẓōr < PIIr.
*snušáH (Ved. snuṣā́-) ~ *snau̯š- Bactr. ασνωηο, ασονωυο; Digor nostæ.

6.2.8. From the perspective of the wife, the ‘husband’s brother / brother-in-law’ is desig-
nated by the PIr. term *θai̯ u̯ár- (with θ° ← *d h° by a not quite regular sound develop-
ment or analogy) Parāči hīwar; Yaghn. s’ewĕr, sīwir; Pṣ̌ t. lew’ar < PIIr. *da(H)iu̯ár-
(Ved. devár-), as opposed to the fem. correspondent, later Ir. *sama-katā- ‘woman in
the same house = sister-in-law (husband’s brother’s wife )’ Šuγn., Bartangi miǰād. *i̯ ā-
tar-/i̯ āθr- NPers. yārī, Pṣ̌ t. yor denotes, from the point of view of the husband, tradition-
ally the ‘sister-in-law’ and, in case two brothers marry, the family relationship of the
women to one another.

7. Abbreviations (languages, grammatical terms, general terms,

and texts)
abstr. abstract (noun) Chwrsm. Chwaresmian
adj. adjective cmpd. compound
Alan. Alanic coll. collective
Arab. Arabic CtrIr. Central Iranian
Aram. Aramaic CtrNE Central NE dialects
Armen. Armenian (Kašani; Farizandi;
AV Atharvaveda Natanzi)
AVP Atharvaveda-Paippalāda Ctr NW Central NW dialects
AVŚ Atharvaveda-Śaunaka (Xunsari)
Bactr. Bactrian Ctr SE Central SE dialects
Bal. Balochi (Yazdi, Kermani)
BuddhSogd. Buddhist Sogdian CtrSW Central SW dialects
Bulg. Bulgarian (Isfahani)
Chant. Chantian Cz. Czech
ChrSogd. Christian Sogdian du. dual
588 VI. Iranian

EIr. Eastern Iranian OAv. Old Avestan

ePIr. Early Proto-Iranian OPers. Old Persian
esp. especially Oss. Ossetic
Fārs Dial. Fars dialects OWIr. Old Western Iranian
f./fem. feminine Pahl. Pahlavi
Finnougr. Finno-Ugric Parth. Parthian
gen. genitive pers. person
Georg. Georgian Phryg. Phrygian
Germ. German PIIr. Proto-Indo-Iranian
Gmc. Germanic PIran. Proto-Iranian
Gr. Greek pl. plural
Hungar. Hungarian PSlav. Proto-Slavic
instr. instrumental prep. preposition(al)
IIr. Indo-Iranian Pšt. Pashto
Ir. Iranian PN personal name
Ishk. Ishkashmi r.-n. root-noun
Juh. Juhuiri Russ. Russian
Khotan. Khotanese RV Rigveda
KurdKurm. Kurdish (Kurmanci)
sg. singular
KurdSor. Kurdish (Sorani)
Sogd. Sogdian
Lat. Latin
STati South Tati
loc. locative
subst. substantive
LW loanword
Šuγn. Shughni
m. masculine
ManMPers. Manichaean Middle SWIr. Southwest Iranian
Persian Tochar. Tocharian
ManParth. Manichaean Parthian TS Taittirīya-Saṁhitā
Mans. Mansian Tumshuq. Tumshuqese
ManSogd. Manichaean Sogdian Turk. Turkic
Mazand. Mazandarani v. adj. verbal adjective
MPers. Middle Persian Ved. Vedic
n. nominative or noun VS Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā
n. abstr. abstract noun WMIr. Western Middle Iranian
n. act. noun of action WNIr. Western Modern Iranian
neut. neuter Yaghn. Yaghnobi
n. instr. noun of instrument YAv. Young Avestan
NIr. Modern Iranian Yazgh. Yazghulami
NPers. Modern Persian Zaz. Zazaki

8. References
Abaev, Vasilij I.
1996 Istoriko-ėtimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka [Historical-etymological dictionary
of Ossetic]. I−IV. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk. [First published Moscow:
Akademija Nauk SSSR 1958−1989.]
36. The lexicon of Iranian 589

Abaev, Vasilij I.
1997 Corrections and additions to the Ossetic etymological dictionary. In: Hans Henrich Hock
(ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and lexicographical studies: A festschrift for Ladislav
Zgusta on the occasion of his 70 th birthday. (Trends in linguistics / Studies and mono-
graphs 90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 197−219.
Back, Michael
1978 Die sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mit-
telpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelper-
sischen Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften. (Acta Iranica 18).
Leiden: Brill.
Baevskij, Solomon I.
1989 Rannaja persidskaja leksikografija XI−XV vv. [Early Persian lexicography of the 11th−
15th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka.
Baevskij, Solomon I.
2007 Early Persian Lexicography: Farhangs of the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. Transl.
by N. Killian. Revised and updated by John R. Perry. (Languages of Asia Series 6).
Folkestone: Global Oriental.
Bailey, Harold W.
1979 Dictionary of Khotanese Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bana, Hormazd R.
1951 Diseases in the Ardibehesht Yasht. In: Rustom Pestonji Masani et al. (eds.), Professor
Poure-Davoud Memorial Volume. […] Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian subjects, con-
tributed by various scholars in honour of Prof. Ebrahim Poure Davoud, Vol. II. Bombay:
Iran League, 205−223.
Bartholomae, Christian
1979 Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published 1904. Strassburg: Trüb-
ner.]
Belgorodskij, Nikolaj Aleksandrovič
1936 Sovremennaja persidskaja leksika [Modern Persian lexicon]. (Trudy Instituta jazyka i
myšlenija im. Marra 7). Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR.
Benveniste, Émile
1931 Une différenciation de vocabulaire dans l’Avesta: mots nobles et populaires. In: Walther
Wüst (ed.), Studia Iranica. Ehrengabe für W. Geiger zur Vollendung des 75. Lebensjah-
res. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 219−227.
Benveniste, Émile
1960 Les noms de l’oiseau en iranien. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Festgabe für Herman
Lommel zur Vollendung seines 75. Lebensjahres am 7. Juli 1960. Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 15−21.
Benzing, Johannes and Zahra Taraf
1983 Chwaresmischer Wortindex. Mit einer Einleitung von Helmut Humbach herausgegeben
von Zahra Taraf. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Bielmeier, Roland
1977 Historische Untersuchung zum Erb- und Lehnwortschatzanteil im ossetischen Grund-
wortschatz. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 27, 2). Frankfurt: Lang.
Bleichsteiner, Robert
1930 Altpersische Edelsteinnamen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37:
93−104.
Boyce, Mary
1977 A Word-List of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. With a reverse index by
Ronald Zwanziger. (Acta Iranica 3, 2, Suppl.) Leiden: Brill.
Brandenstein, Wilhelm and Manfred Mayrhofer
1964 Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
590 VI. Iranian

Büchi, Eva
1996 Les Structures du ‹ Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch ›. Recherches métalexico-
graphiques et métalexicologiques. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie
268). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Cabolov, Ruslan L.
2001−2010 Ėtimologičeskij slovarʼ kurdskogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Kurdish
language]. Tom 1: A−M. Tom 2: N−Ž. Moscow: Vostočnaja Literatura RAN.
Casartelli, Louis Charles
1886 Traité de médecine mazdéenne. Louvain: Peeters.
Cheung, Johnny
2002 Studies in the Historical Development of the Ossetic Vocalism. (Beiträge zur Iranistik
21). Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Cheung, Johnny
2005 Review of Morgenstierne 2003. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
68: 127−129.
Cheung, Johnny
2007 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dic-
tionary Series 2). Leiden: Brill.
Collett, Nigel A.
1983 A grammar, phrase book and vocabulary of Baluchi (as spoken in the Sultanate of
Oman). Abingdon: Burgess and Son.
Davary, Gholami Djelani
1982 Baktrisch. Ein Wörterbuch auf Grund der Inschriften, Handschriften, Münzen und Sie-
gelsteine. Heidelberg: Groos.
De Chiara, Matteo
2008 Studi sul lessico e sulla fonetica della lingua pashto. Unpublished PhD thesis. Università
degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”.
De Chiara, Matteo, Mauro Maggi, and Giuliana Martini (eds.)
2011 Buddhism among the Iranian Peoples in Central Asia (= Multilingualism and History
of Knowledge, Volume II. ed. by Jens E. Braarvig, Markham J. Geller, Gebhard Selz,
and Velizar Sadovski). (Iranische Onomastik 11). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Dehxodā, ʿAlī Akbar
1946−1981 Loġātnāme [Dictionary]. Tehran: Mo’assese-ye Entešārāt va Čāp-e Dānešgāh-e
Tehrān.
Delaini, Paolo
2014 Medicina del corpo, medicina dell’anima. (Indo-Iranica et Orientalia. Series Lazur, ed.
by Antonio Panaino and Velizar Sadovski, no. 9). Milan: Mimesis.
Dornseiff, Franz
2004 Der deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen. 8. Aufl., völlig neubearb. und mit einem
vollst. alphabet. Zugriffsreg. vers. Aufl. von Uwe Quasthoff. Mit einer lexikographisch-
historischen Einführung und einer ausgewählten Bibliographie zur Lexikographie und
Onomasiologie von Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond
2004 Dictionary of Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. (Corpus Fontium Manichaeo-
rum. Dictionary of Manichaean Texts III. Texts from Central Asia and China, part 1).
Turnhout: Brepols.
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond
2014 Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). (Sitzungsberichte
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 850. Band /
Grammatica Iranica, ed. by Velizar Sadovski, Nr. 1). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 591

Ėdel’man, Džoj I.
2011−2015 Ėtimologičeskij slovarʼ iranskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Iranian
languages]. Tom 4: i−k, 2011. Tom 5: l−n, 2015. (Tom 1−3: see Rastorgueva −
Ėdel’man 2000−2007). Moscow: Nauka. [Continuation of Rastorgueva and Ėdel’man
2000−2007.]
Efimov, V[alentin] A. (ed.)
1997−2008 Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Iranian linguistics]. Novoiran-
skie jazyki [Modern Iranian languages] [III]. Severo-zapadnaja gruppa [The northwest
group], II. 1997. Sredneiranskie i novoiranskie jazyki [Middle and modern Iranian lan-
guages]. 2008. Moscow: Nauka. [Continuation of Rastorgueva (ed.) 1981−1991.]
Elfenbein, Josef
1983 A Brahui supplementary vocabulary. Indo-Iranian Journal 25: 191−209.
Emmerick, Ronald E.
1969 ‘Old age’ in Sogdian. In: Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata. Band II.
Rome: Herder, 131−137.
Emmerick, Ronald E. and Prods Oktor Skjærvø
1982−1997 Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese. I−III. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichi-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Band 401; 458; 651. / Veröffent-
lichungen der Iranischen Kommission 12; 17; 27). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
EWA 1−3: See Mayrhofer, 1986−2001.
Fichtner, Horst
1924 Die Medizin im Awesta. Leipzig: Pfeiffer.
Filippone, Ela
1995 The “pupil of the eye” in the Iranian languages. (Etnolinguistica dell’area iranica 5).
Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici.
Filippone, Ela
2000−2003 The fingers’ names in Balochi. Balochistan Studies 8−10: 59−89.
Filippone, Ela
2006 The Body and the landscape. Metaphorical strategies in the lexicon of the Iranian lan-
guages. In: Antonio Panaino and Riccardo Zipoli (eds.), Proceedings of the 5 th Confer-
ence of the Societas Iranologica Europæa held in Ravenna, 6−11 October 2003. Vol.
II. Classical & contemporary Iranian studies. Milan: Mimesis, 365−389.
Filippone, Ela
2010 The Fingers and their Names in the Iranian Languages. (Onomasiological Studies of
Body Part Lexicon, I). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 811. Band / Veröf-
fentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 55). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten.
Geiger, Wilhelm
1893 Etymologie und Lautlehre des Afghānischen. (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 20, 1). Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.
Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.)
1974a Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. Band I,1. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published
1895−1901. Strassburg: Trübner.]
Geiger, Wilhelm and Ernst Kuhn (eds.)
1974b Grundriss der iranischen Philologie. Band I,2. Berlin: De Gruyter. [First published
1898−1901. Strassburg: Trübner.]
Gershevitch, Ilya
1952 Ancient survivals in Ossetic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14.
483−495. [Reprint in Gershevitch 1985: 114−126.]
592 VI. Iranian

Gershevitch, Ilya
1963 Agricultural terms in Iranian. In: Bobodžan G. Gafurov (ed.), Trudy dvadcať pjatogo
meždunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov, Moskva, 9−16 avgusta 1960. Band II. Mos-
cow: Izdateľstvo vostočnoj literatury, 293−358.
Gershevitch, Ilya
1985 Philologia Iranica. Selected and edited by Nicolas Sims-Williams. (Beiträge zur Iranis-
tik 12). Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Gharib, Badresaman
1995 Sogdian Dictionary. Sogdian−Persian−English. Tehran: Farhangan.
Goodell, Grace
1979 Bird lore in Southwestern Iran. Asian Folklore Studies 32: 131−153.
Gouws, Rufus Hjalmar, Ulrich Heid, Wolfgang Schweickard, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.)
2008−2013 Wörterbücher / Dictionaries / Dictionnaires. An International Encyclopedia of
Lexicography. Vol. 1−3, 2008. Supplementary Volume 2013. (Handbücher zur Sprach-
und Kommunikationswissenschaft 5, 1−4). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Gülensoy, Tuncer
1994 Kürtçenin etimolojik sözlüğü. Deneme. [Etymological dictionary of Kurdish. A speci-
men]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Hallig, Rudolf and Walther von Wartburg
1963 Begriffssystem als Grundlage für die Lexikographie; Versuch eines Ordnungsschemas.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Heidermanns, Frank
2005 Bibliographie zur indogermanischen Wortforschung. Wortbildung, Etymologie, Onoma-
siologie und Lehnwortschichten der alten und modernen indogermanischen Sprachen
in systematischen Publikationen ab 1800. Band I−III. Mit einer CD-ROM. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Hintze, Almut
1994 Der Zamyād-Yašt. Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 15). Wies-
baden: Reichert.
Hintze, Almut
2007 A Zoroastrian Liturgy. The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35−41). Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz.
Hinz, Walther
1937 Neue Formen des persischen Wortschatzes. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 91: 680−698.
Hinz, Walther
1942 Altpersischer Wortschatz. (Abhandlungen zur Kunde des Morgenlandes hrsg. von der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 27.1). Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Hinz, Walther
1975 Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen. (Göttinger Orientforschungen, III. Rei-
he: Iranica, 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hoffmann, Karl
1965 Idg. *snei̯ g u̯h. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 18: 13−28. [Reprint in Hoff-
mann 1976, 442−454.]
Hoffmann, Karl
1975−1992 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Band 1, 1975 and Band 2, 1976 ed. by Johanna Narten.
Band 3, 1992 ed. by Sonja Glauch, Robert Plath, and Sabine Ziegler. Wiesbaden: Rei-
chert.
Horn, Paul
1988 Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. (Sammlung indogermanischer Wörterbücher,
IV). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. [First published 1893. Strassburg: Trübner.]
36. The lexicon of Iranian 593

Houtum-Schindler, Albert
1884−1888 Beiträge zum kurdischen Wortschatze. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländi-
schen Gesellschaft 38[1884]: 43−116; 42[1888]: 73−79.
Hovelaque, Abel
1875 Les médecins et la médecine dans l’Avesta. Paris: sine nomine. Online under
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6580472g (last access: 15. 10. 2013).
Hübschmann, Heinrich
1969 Etymologie und Lautlehre der ossetischen Sprache. (Sammlung indogermanischer Wör-
terbücher 1). Amsterdam: Oriental Press. [First published 1887. Strassburg: Trübner.]
Hübschmann, Heinrich
1895 Persische Studien. Strassburg: Trübner.
Humbach, Helmut
1966−1967 Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler. Teil 1, mit Beiträgen von Adolf Grohmann, 1966.
Teil 2: Abbildungen, 1967. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Jahani, Carina and Agnes Korn
2003 The Baloch and their Neighbours. Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in histori-
cal and modern times. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Jamison, Stephanie
2011 Avestan xšuuīd: A Relic of Indo-Iranian Ritual Vocabulary. Bulletin of the Asia Institute
25[2015]: 19−29.
Joki, Aulis J.
1962 Finnisch-ugrisches im Ossetischen? In: Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem
Paavo Ravila. (Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seuran toimituksia / Mémoires de la Société Finno-
Ougrienne 125). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 147−170.
Karamšoev, Dodchudo
1988−2005 Šugnansko-russkij slovarʼ: v trech tomach [Šuγni-Russian dictionary: in three vol-
umes]. Tom I, 1988. Tom II, 1991. Tom III, 1999. Tom IV[!], 2005. Moscow: Nauka.
Karimi Doostan, Gholam Hossein
1990 An Etymological Dictionary of Kurdish Dialect of Badra, Ilam. With its phonemic de-
scription. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Shiraz.
Kellens, Jean and Éric Pirart
1988−1991 Les textes vieil-avestiques. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kent, Roland G.
1953 Old Persian. Grammar. Texts. Lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Kieffer, Charles M.
1979 Études parāči. IV. Le lexique parāči: Glossaire. Studia Iranica 8. 67−106, 245−267.
Kieffer, Charles M.
1980 Études parāči. IV. Le lexique parāči: Glossaire. Studia Iranica 9. 99−119, 233−249.
Kipfer, Barbara Ann
2005 Roget’s 21st century thesaurus in dictionary form. 3 rd edn. […]. Edited by the Princeton
Language Institute. New York: Bantam Dell.
Klein, Jared S.
1988 Proto-Indo-European *gwiH3 - ‘live’ and related problems of laryngeals in Greek. In:
Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indoger-
manischen Laut- und Formensystems. (Indogermanische Bibliothek. 3. Reihe: Untersu-
chungen). Heidelberg: Winter, 257−279.
Korn, Agnes
2003 Balochi and the Concept of North-West Iranian. In: Jahani and Korn (eds.), 49−60.
Korn, Agnes
2005 Towards a Historical Grammar of Balochi. Studies in Balochi Historical Phonology and
Vocabulary. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 26). Wiesbaden: Reichert.
594 VI. Iranian

Korn, Agnes
2006 Parthian Month Names and Calendars. Parthica. Fascicoli monografici 8 (= Antonio
Invernizzi [ed.], Papers presented to David Sellwood. Pisa 2006[2007]): 153−167.
Korn, Agnes
2009 Archaismus und Innovation im Verbalsystem des Balochi. Iranistik. Deutschsprachige
Zeitschrift für iranistische Studien 12: 103−112.
Kozyreva, T[amara] Z[aurbekovna]
1962 Leksika osetinskogo jazyka s točki zrenija ee istoričeskogo proischoždenija [Lexicon of
Ossetic from the point of view of its historical origin]. Izvestija Severo-Osetinskogo
naučno-issledovateľskogo instituta. Jazykoznanie 23: 45−63.
Kozyreva, T[amara] Z[aurbekovna]
1964 Iz istorii osetinskoj leksikografii [From the history of Ossetic lexicography]. Izvestija
Severo-Osetinskogo Naučno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta. Jazykoznanie 24: 143−156.
Kulikov, Leonid
2009 Vedic piśá- and Atharvaveda-Śaunakīya 19.49.4 = Atharvaveda-Paippalāda 14.8.4: A
note on the Indo-Iranian bestiary. Journal of Indo-European Studies 37: 141−154.
Kümmel, Martin J.
To appear1 Der Beitrag der jüngeren iranischen Sprachen zur Rekonstruktion des Urindoira-
nischen. In: Antonio Panaino, Claudia Fabrizio, Hans Christian Luschützky, Céline Re-
dard, and Velizar Sadovski (eds.), Linguistic Studies of Iranian and Indo-European Lan-
guages. Proceedings of the Symposium in memory of Xavier Tremblay (1971−2011).
(Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse: Iranische Onomastik). Vienna: Öster-
reichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 72−102.
Kümmel, Martin J.
To appear2 *nāf-.
Kurdoev, Kanat K.
1960 Kurdsko-russkij slovar’ okolo 34000 slov s priloženiem kratkogo grammatičeskogo očer-
ka kurdskogo âzyka [Kurdish-Russian dictionary of nearly 34,000 words with the addi-
tion of a short grammatical sketch of the Kurdish language]. Moscow: Akademiâ nauk
SSSR, Institut vostokovedeniâ.
Kurdoev, Kanat K. and Zara A. Jusupova
1983 Kurdsko-russkij slovar’ (sorani) [Kurdish (Sorani)-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Gosu-
darstvennoe Izdateľstvo Inostrannyx i Nacionaľnyx Slovarej.
Lambton, Ann K. S.
1988 Persian Vocabulary. 5 th reprint. London: Cambridge University Press. [First published
1954.]
Lescot, Roger
1939 La réforme du vocabulaire en Iran. Revue des études islamiques 13: 76−96.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2001 Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian. Incontri Linguistici 24: 24−57.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2002 The Indo-Iranian word for ‘shank, shin’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122:
318−324.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2006 Indo-European ‘heel’. In: Raffaella Bombi, Guido Cifoletti, Fabiana Fusco, Lucia Inno-
cente, and Vincenzo Orioles (eds.), Studi Linguistici in Onore di Roberto Gusmani.
Alessandria: Editioni dell’Orso, 1005−1010.
Lubotsky, Alexander
2015 Alanic Marginal Notes in a Greek Liturgical Manuscript. (Sitzungsberichte der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 859. Band / Grammatica
Iranica, ed. by Velizar Sadovski, Nr. 2). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 595

Lubotsky, Alexander
To appear Etymological Dictionary of Indo-Iranian. (Leiden Indo-European Etymological
Dictionary Series). Leiden: Brill.
Lurje, Pavel B.
2010 Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel
8). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 808. Band: Iranische Onomastik 8).
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
MacKenzie, David Neil
1990 A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. [First Published 1971.]
MacKenzie, David Neil
1999 Iranica Diversa. 2 vols. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
Mahmoodzahi, Mossa
1991 An Etymological Glossary of Baloochi Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Shiraz.
Majidi, Mohammad-Reza
1995 Strukturelle Grammatik des Neupersischen (Fārsi). Band 3: Rückläufiges persisches
Wörterbuch. Eine lexikalisch-morphologische Untersuchung mit Methoden der Linguis-
tischen Datenverarbeitung. (Strukturelle Grammatik des Neupersischen 3). Hamburg:
Buske.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1986−2001 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. (Indogermanische Bibliothek.
II. Reihe: Wörterbücher). I: A−D. [1986−]1992. II: N−H. [1992−]1996. III: Die jüngere
Sprache. [1996−]2001. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
2005 Die Fortsetzung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Indo-Iranischen. (Sitzungsberichte
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 730. Band). Vien-
na: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
2006 Einiges zu den Skythen, ihrer Sprache, ihrem Nachleben. (Sitzungsberichte der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 742. Band / Veröffentli-
chungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 36). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Milizia, Paolo
2012 The etymology of the Avestan hapax bixəδra- and the exegesis of Vidēvdād 19.21. Indo-
Iranian Journal 55: 101−117.
Moayyad, Heshmat
1962 Zum Problemkreis und Stand der persischen Lexikographie. Annali dell’Istituto Univer-
sitario Orientale di Napoli, N. S. 12: 1−81.
Morgenstierne, Georg
1927 An Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akad-
emi i Oslo, Hist.-fil. klasse 1927, 3). Oslo: Aschehoug [later Universitetsforlaget].
Morgenstierne, Georg
1932 Notes on Balochi etymology. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskab 5: 37−53.
Morgenstierne, Georg
2003 A New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Compiled and ed. by Josef Elfenbein, David
Neil MacKenzie, and Nicholas Sims-Williams. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 23). Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
Narten, Johanna
1969 Idg. ‘Kinn’ und ‘Knie’ im Avestischen: zanauua-, zānu-drājah-. Indogermanische For-
schungen 74[1970]: 39−53.
Nussbaum, Alan
1986 Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin: De Gruyter.
596 VI. Iranian

Nyberg, Henrik Samuel

1974 A Manual of Pahlavi. II: Glossary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Omar, Feryad Fazil
1992 Kurdisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (Kurmancî) / Ferhenga kurdî-elmanî. Berlin: Kurdische
Studien / Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung.
Panaino, Antonio
To appear Av. zruuan-.
Pejsikov, Lazar’. S.
1975 Leksikologija sovremennogo persidskogo jazyka [Lexicology of Modern Persian]. Mos-
cow: Izdateľstvo Moskovskogo universiteta.
Pohl, Heinz Dieter
1975 Rückläufiges Wörterbuch des Altpersischen. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissen-
schaft 1: 11−26.
Rastorgueva, Vera S. (ed.)
1981−1991 Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Iranian linguistics]. Srednei-
ranskie jazyki [Middle Iranian languages]. 1981. Novoiranskie jazyki [Modern Iranian
languages] [II.]. Vostočnaja gruppa [The eastern group]. 1987. Novoiranskie jazyki
[Modern Iranian languages] [I.], Severo-zapadnaja gruppa, I [The northwest group, I].
1991. Moscow: Nauka.
Rastorgueva, Vera S. and Džoj I. Ėdel’man
2000−2007 Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ iranskich jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Iranian
languages]. Tom 1: a−ā, 2000. Tom 2: b−d, 2003. Tom 3: f−h, 2007. Moscow: Vostoč-
naja Literatura. [Tom 4−5: see Ėdel’man 2011−2015.]
Rau, Wilhelm
1974 Metalle und Metallgeräte im vedischen Indien. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozial-
wissenschaftlichen Klasse / Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur [Mainz];
Jg. 1973, Nr. 8). Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Rosenfeld, A. Z.
1961 Tadžiksko-persidskie jazykovye otnošenija (po materialam leksiki) [Tajik-Persian lin-
guistic relationships (according to the materials of the lexicon)] Učenye zapiski Lening-
radskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 294 (filol. 12): 12−42.
Rozova, L. I. and V. I. Savina
1975 Slovar’ geograficheskikh terminov i drugikh slov, formirui͡ushchikh toponimii͡u Tadzhik-
skoǐ SSR [Dictionary of geographical terms and other words forming the toponymy of
the Tadjik SSR]. Moscow: Nauk.
Sadovski, Velizar
2000 Die exozentrischen Zusammensetzungen mit Vorderglied Präverb/Präposition im R̥gve-
da: Entheos-Komposita und präpositionale Rektionskomposita. In: Bernhard Forssman
and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung
der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen, 455−473.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Sadovski, Velizar
2001 Bahuvrīhis und Rektionskomposita im R̥gveda und Avesta: Reinterpretationen ursprüng-
licher Entheos-Komposita als Ausgangspunkt für die Herausbildung neuer präpositional-
er Rektionskomposita. In: Stefan Wild and Hartmut Schild (eds.), Norm und Abwei-
chung. Akten des 27. Deutschen Orientalistentags, Bonn, 28.09.−02.10.1998, 101−120.
(Kultur, Recht und Politik in muslimischen Gesellschaften 1). Würzburg: Ergon.
Sadovski, Velizar
To appear1 Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Noun. (Leiden Indo-European Etymologi-
cal Dictionary Series). Leiden: Brill.
36. The lexicon of Iranian 597

Sadovski, Velizar
To appear2 Studies in historical lexicology and phraseology: from Proto-Indo-Iranian to Ira-
nian. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist.
Klasse, 850. Band / Grammatica Iranica, Nr. 6). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Sadovski, Velizar
To appear3 Vedic and Avestan parallels from ritual litanies and practices. In: Lucien van Beek,
Alwin Kloekhorst, Guus Kroonen, Michael Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk, and Michiel de Vaan
(eds.), Indo-Iranian and its Indo-European origins: Proceedings of the workshop in
honour of Alexander Lubotsky on the occasion of his 60 th birthday, Leiden University,
April 8−9, 2016.
Sadovski, Velizar and Antonio Panaino
2013 Disputationes Iranologicae Vindobonenses, II. (Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Klasse 845: Veröffentlichungen zur Iranistik
65). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Samadi, Mahlagha
1986 Das chwaresmische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schapka, Ulrich
1972a Vokabular der im östlichen Afghanistan gesammelten gebräuchlichen Pflanzennamen.
Nach den Unterlagen von Otto H. Volk zusammengestellt und bearbeitet. Würzburg:
Orientalisches Seminar der Universität Würzburg.
Schapka, Ulrich
1972b Die persischen Vogelnamen. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Würzburg.
Schindler, Jochem
1969 Die indogermanischen Wörter für ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei’. Die Sprache 15: 144−167.
Schmidt, Gernot
1973 Die iranischen Wörter für ‘Tochter’ und ‘Vater’ und die Reflexe des interkonsonanti-
schen H(ə) in den idg. Sprachen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 87:
36−83.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1978 Die theophoren Eigennamen mit altiranisch *Miθra-. In: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin
(ed.), Études Mithriaques. Actes du 2 e Congrès International Téhéran, du 1er au 8 sep-
tembre 1975. (Acta Iranica 17). Leiden: Brill, 395−455.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.)
1989 Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Schmitt, Rüdiger
2000 Kalenderbezogene Personennamengebung im vorislamischen Iran. In: Laurent Dubois
and Emilia Masson (eds.), Philokypros. Mélanges de philologie et d’antiquités grecques
et proche-orientales dédiés à la mémoire d’Olivier Masson. (Minos: Suplementos, 16).
Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, Seminario de Filología Clásica, 267−276.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.)
2014 Wörterbuch der altpersischen Königsinschriften. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Shaked, Shaul
2002 Towards a Middle Persian dictionary. In: Philip Huyse (ed.), Iran. Questions et connais-
sances. Actes du IV e Congrès Européen des études iraniennes organisé par la Societas
Iranologica Europaea Paris, 6−10 septembre 1999. Vol. I. La période ancienne. (Studia
Iranica − Cahier 25, 1). Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes,
120−134.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas
2000−2007 Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan. (Studies in the Khalili Collection
3 / Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian
Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, Vol. VI: Bactrian). Vol. I: Legal and
598 VI. Iranian

economic documents. 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vol. II: Letters and Bud-
dhist texts. 2007. Oxford: Nour Foundation, Azimuth Editions.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas
2010 Bactrian Personal Names. (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band II, Faszikel 7).
(Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse, 806. Band: Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 7).
Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas
2016a A Dictionary: Christian Sogdian, Syriac and English. (Beiträge zur Iranistik 41). Wies-
baden: Reichert.
Sims-Williams, Nicholas
2016b English index to the Dictionaries of Manichaean and Christian Sogdian. Online at aca-
demia.edu 2016 (last access 12.07.2016).
Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst
2012 Dictionary of Manichaean Sogdian and Bactrian. (Dictionary of Manichaean Texts,
Vol. III/2). Turnhout: Brepols.
Sohn, Peter
1996 Die Medizin des Zādsparam. Anatomie, Physiologie und Psychologie in den Wizīdagīhā
ī Zādsparam, einer zoroastrisch-mittelpersischen Anthologie aus dem frühislamischen
Iran des neunten Jahrhunderts. (Iranica 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Steblin-Kamenskij, Ivan M.
1982 Očerki po istorii leksiki pamirskich jazykov. Nazvanija kuľturnych rastenij [Essays on
the history of the lexicon of the Pamir languages. Names of cultural plants] Moscow:
Nauka.
Steblin-Kamenskij, Ivan M.
1999 Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ vachanskogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Wakhi lan-
guage]. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie.
Steingass, F[rancis Joseph]
1963 A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary. 5 th edn. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul. [First published 1892. London: Lockwood.]
Thordarson, Fridrik
2009 Ossetic Grammatical Studies. (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW. Phil.-hist. Klasse 788: Veröf-
fentlichungen zur Iranistik, Nr. 48). Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaf-
ten.
Tremblay, Xavier
2005a Review of Morgenstierne 2003. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique 100: 173−184.
Tremblay, Xavier
2005b Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century [Part One]. Indo-European Stud-
ies Bulletin 11/1: 1−23.
Tremblay, Xavier
2008 Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century Part Two. Indo-European Studies
Bulletin 13/1: 1−51.
Tremblay, Xavier
2009 Iranian Historical Linguistics in the 20th Century, especially since the publication of the
Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (1989). Part Three: Old Persian, Middle, and New
Iranian Languages. Indo-European Studies Bulletin 14/1−2: 341−351.
Verrier, Eugène
1887 La médecine dans l’Avesta ou traité de médecine mazdéenne traduit du pahlavi. Journal
de médecine de Paris 13: 141−152.
Vullers, Johann August
1962 Lexicon Persico-Latinum etymologicum. Cum linguis maxime cognatis Sanscrita et Zen-
dica et Pehlevica comparatum e lexicis Persice scriptis Borhâni Qâtiu, Haft Qulzum et
Bah’ari agam et Persico-Turcico Farhangi-Shuûrî confectum, adhibitis etiam Castelli,
37. The dialectology of Iranian 599

Meninski, Richardson et aliorum operibus et auctoritate scriptorum Persicorum adauc-

tum. Accedit appendix vocum dialecti antiquioris, Zend et Pazend dictae. Vol. 1−3.
Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [First published 1855−1867. Bonnae ad
Rhenum: Marcus.]
von Wartburg, Walther
1922−2002 Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Eine Darstellung des galloromani-
schen Sprachschatzes (25 Bde.). Leipzig: Teubner.
Windfuhr, Gernot (ed.)
2009 The Iranian Languages. (Routledge Language Family Series). London: Routledge.
Yakubovič, I[ľja] S.
2013 Novoe v sogdijskoj ėtimologii [New developments in Sogdian etymology]. (Studia philo-
logica). Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kuľtury.
Zadok, Ran
2009 Iranische Personennamen in der neu- und spätbabylonischen Nebenüberlieferung.
(= Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Band VII, Faszikel 1B). (Sitzungsberichte der ÖAW.
Phil.-hist. Klasse, 777. Band: Iranische Onomastik, Nr. 4). Vienna: Österreichische Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften.

Velizar Sadovski, Vienna (Austria)

37. The dialectology of Iranian

1. Definition 6. Old Iranian
2. Origins 7. Middle Iranian
3. Name and main features 8. New Iranian
4. Classification 9. Bibliography
5. Documentation and history 10. References

1. Definition
Since the mid-19 th century, the ethnic-linguistic term “Iranian” has been used to denote
a major group of languages currently spoken in a wide area spread across the Iranian
Plateau and stretching from Central Turkey, Syria, and Iraq in the west to parts of Paki-
stan, most of Afghanistan, and the western frontier of China in the east and from the
Caucasus area, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in the north-west, as well as the Cen-
tral Asian republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in the north-east down
to the Persian Gulf and the Musandam peninsula in Oman across the Strait of Hormuz
in the south (not to mention the diaspora communities, particularly those of Europe,
Israel, and North America). In medieval times, before the spread of the Turkic peoples,
Sakas and Sogdians were established even further east, up to northern Mongolia and the
region that later became known as Chinese Turkestan (Xinjiang province). In a still
earlier period, before the rise of the Achaemenids, Iranian-speaking peoples were to be
found along the northern and western shores of the Black Sea.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261288-037