Talk:արև

Etymology
, why the cautious language? It looks like the etymology is pretty much universally accepted since Petermann 1837. --Vahag (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the remark. However, where is it "universally" accepted? Not in Pokorny, who places the Indian word with ~ reud- 'red'. Thus it remains a hypothesis. HJJHolm (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is universally accepted in the Armenological literature, a fraction of which I just added in the references. Pokorny is outdated and should not be relied upon in case of Armenian. Olsen writes that "the Armenian material has received a rather careless treatment" in IEW and she is right. By the way, Pokorny is proceeding from the assumption that is the primitive root of  (see, v. II, page 359), that's why he places Armenian and Sanskrit under the latter. So technically even he does not disagree with the standard etymology. --Vahag (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. However, we should cite at least Martyrosian. He regrettably does not give the original ortography, so that the reader has to struggle with the different transliteration systems. He notes the term under "areg", and seems to fully agree with you. HJJHolm (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Martirosyan is already cited. --Vahag (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

w>g sound change
Shouldn't *h₂rew-i- render only արեգ due to the w>g sound shift? Does this infer that there are cases where w>v? BoghosBoghossian (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many case where PIE *w > v. See Martirosyan 2010: 707 with references. --Vahag (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)