Could Armenians have been in Armi/Armani

[tyuiopman]

Thanks. According to Vladimir Orel, Albanian actually doesn't share many features with Armenian, or Indo-Iranian. Very few shared specific Isoglosses. He is to be taken with a grain of salt, but if Hamp is correct, then it would make sense, that Albanian was not part of the Greco-Armenian branch and only came into contact with Greek (since it shares high unique isoglosses) long after it had split off from armenian:

This doesn't surprise me. It just further supports my argument that Armenians were not originally a Balkan people.

It seems that, besides both being Indo-European and both having their own subfamilies within the greater IE language family, that's really where the similarities between Armenians and Albanians end.

As fascinating as the Albanian language is, there are quite a few threads on the board related to Albanians and Albanian. Let's go back to talking about Armenian history and language in this thread!

[Johane Derite]

As fascinating as the Albanian language is, there are quite a few threads on the board related to Albanians and Albanian. Let's go back to talking about Armenian history and language in this thread!

Don't worry I just posted it to complement your statement, as I always thought it was weird why albanian has so little Indo-Iranian and Armenian links compared to Greek, and your scenario made sense. Keep posting more stuff as it is very interesting and compelling.

[tyuiopman]

Don't worry I just posted it to complement your statement, as I always thought it was weird why albanian has so little Indo-Iranian and Armenian links compared to Greek, and your scenario made sense. Keep posting more stuff as it is very interesting and compelling.

I do think the djerm/djarm thing is interesting, thanks for pointing that out! I didn't know that about Albanian, but it's funny that both Armenian and Albanian developed PIE *gwermos the same way (from gw to dj).

Here are some interesting Armenian origins articles, if you have a bit of time and are interested. I've been using these as references:

This one is really comprehensive:

https://www.academia.edu/3657764/Tow...ew_in_English_

This one is a little bit more palatable/a quicker read:

https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/09/01/1...%20Handout.pdf

[G2ian]

I'm not entirely convinced that Armenians are Mushki, even the eastern ones who may have come from the Caucasus region. The -k in Mushk (Mushki) might be a Armenian plural marker (for example, Armenians are "Hayk" in old Armenian--literally just means "Hays/Hyes"). But Mush doesn't mean anything--although there is a city around Lake Van which is still called Mush. Petrosyan argued that Mushk could be a version of Missak, who was somehow connected to Aram--his brother or general, I don't remember. But the point is, unless there was a specific tribe of Armenians who were called Missak or something, and it got changed by the Assyrians or Greeks (I know that Mushki is an Assyrian name), Armenians don't use a variation of this name for themselves. Missak is a name though.

The name of the city of Mush is thought to come from the Mushki, but maybe it's the other way around? Or maybe its an exonym from another language we don't have a record of that meant something? I'm making this up but we don't know what the Mannaeans spoke...maybe "mush" meant "northerners" in their language or something (I just made this up to illustrate a point).

I should note that the Greeks differentiated between Armenians, Phrygians, and Mushki. I believe that the Assyrians differentiated between the Armenians and Mushki too.

Muskhi are Meskhetians, the Tribe that founded Mtskheta. They were Kartvelians. So if we're arguing that eastern Mushki were Armenians then that means Armenians were just a Kartvelian tribe that was subjugated and Indo-Europeanized by some other group. while Western Meskhs went on to start Kartvelian kingdoms.

The whole thing is nonsense.