Talk:Name of Armenia

merge, de-crankify
this apparently belongs merged into Armenians. It seems to be a disparate collections of sound-alikes of "Armani", sprinkled with mystical nonsense about "AR = Aryan = GOD" and whatnot. Uniting these various inscriptions into a tangible ethnicity, "blond-haired, and blue-eyed in appearance" no less, seems to be utterly confused fringecruft. Attribute to credible sources and discuss on Armenians in context. dab (𒁳) 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to explain about the root word "AR" from sources, like the book of Jubilees, where it says: "And 'Ur, the son of Keśed, built the city of 'Ara of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father. (Jubilees 11:3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur#Biblical_Ur

If Ur is Ar or Ara(which is a common Armenian name by the way) in Semetic?? Why is it that you dont understand the root word "Ar" means light, sun, fire in Armenian, and in Indo-European in fact. So if Ur means light, sun, fire in Semitic, like Hebrew ?? Why dont you understand that the IE root AR means light, sun, or fire. Here is the link with the Hebrew in case you dont understand the same root word means the same thing: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/16_english.html

So as I said AR means light, fire, or sun in Armenian, like Arev means Sun, or Areg. The word for God in Armenian is Ararich (also Astvadz). The double Ar is also found in Ararat, which means place of Arar, or the place where Ararich created in other words 75.24.236.45 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another example is Ararat and Urartu, where Ur variation is Ar. So now with Germans, Persians, Armenians, all having the name Armen in their form like: Armin and Arman in Germans and Persians, we have a common link in the past as Indo-European(Aryan) peoples. Why is there any doubts about that, when the very names are there 75.24.236.45 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The root of the word Aryan could be Ar-yo, but its also the other form 'Ari' which is also found in ancient records, I'll try to get that too as a cited source. Ari was the earlier form of Ari-ya, which was found in the Armenian Highlands. That is where the Persua(Persians) were before migrating south. Another thing is that I forgot is, there are Aryan swastika symbols found in the Armenian Highlands dating to atleast the 4th millennium BC. Aryan swastika symbols exactly like the ones in India found. Yet another proof of Indo-Europeans in the Armenian Highlands in ancient times, besides the Kura-Araxes culture 75.24.236.45 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the reference I gave here of http://www.avesta.org/znames.htm, this is what it says that Im referring to:

ARMIN: a dweller of the garden of Eden; son of King Kobad

Look carefully its in that avesta.org page 75.4.26.129 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * you are discussing various unrelated names that sound roughly the same. No case is made that there is in fact a specific people being discussed. This belongs (the parts that are at all substantiated, that is), on Armenia. dab (𒁳) 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Im talking about Armin is an Armenian name, and the girls common name is Armin'e, this Armin that I showed you is Armenian as well as Persin and German. Its mainly Armenian girls name, the Armen of the feminine, which is Armin'e 75.4.26.129 06:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And the Arman you removed, is also an Armenian form of Armen, we put as a man's name. Stop removing info with ignorance. 75.4.26.129 06:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * look, you have to provide a reference for your claim that Armenian Armin'e and Avestan Armin are at all connected. Just their sounding alike proves nothing. There is a German name Armin which is completely unrelated, it just happens to be spelled the same. dab (𒁳) 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its the same, cause Armina is the form in Persian records from around 500 BC, the same is Armin the Persian and Armenian name, cause have you even read about Persian history?? If you know about that record, it is actually at the time a Persian section of their empire in the north, they called Armina, from their name also of Armin = a dweller of the garden of Eden. Did you look in the page ? You see there is also Arta etc etc. Those that survive in Armenian words and names to this day. Alex mond 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the considered site of the Garden of Eden being in Armenia also. Alex mond 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

can you please just cite your sources? I have looked at your page. It cites "Armin" as a name of the Parsis. It does not mean "dweller in Paradise", it is the name of a dweller in Paradise in Parsi legend. If you want to connect this in any way with Armenia, you have to cite your source, alright? It's pure speculation, and you have to cite whose speculation it is. Why is this so difficult to understand? You are most welcome to heap speculation upon speculation, but you need to name the author, publication, year, and page number. dab (𒁳) 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

About the Akkadian record, Ive seen you put in the Akkadian_Empire section of Naram-sin, so you know about that source. Alex mond 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sheesh, I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking you to cite your sources. Read my lips: WP:CITE. If there is an inscription by Naram-Sin, cite it, don't pretend it is identical to the one discussed by Albright. dab (𒁳) 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, whats the problem for you to put it? You didnt put it in the other pages of Akkad etc etc? I dont know that certain source, since you know it like the other sources, can you just add it like you did with the other ones. I dont have the citation of htat which you didnt put in the other pages though Alex mond 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

it's very easy: give us a reference to a respectable source discussing the Naram-Sin inscription. Until you do that, we will not know where you got this information, and if it is at all reliable. Have you read WP:ATT yet? No, really, read it. dab (𒁳) 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

so, we are getting somewhere. You say that "Artak Movsisyan, "Aratta: The ancient Kindgom of Armenia," Yerevan, 1992." refers to the Naram-Sin inscription. Do you have access to this book? (page number?) What is Movsisyan's source? Does he identify the inscription? Where was it published? dab (𒁳) 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

claims
distinguish the following claims: all of this is wild-eyed speculation, mostly found in Armenian popular "histories" disconnected from anything resembling academia. The best reference we have so far is Easton’s Bible Dictionary saying that "some" identify Armenia as Assyrian Har Minna "Minna mountains" (without endorsing the connection). The ar- etymology is utter nonsense. What we can gather is that the Armenia exonym may have a predecessor in a Bronze Age toponym. That Armin is a name for Armenia "to this day" is utterly irrelevant, since we already know it was a name for Armenia in 520 BC: it doesn't help us with the Assyrian or Egyptian toponym. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Assyrian Armani and Egyptian Ermenen have the same referent
 * 2) this Bronze Age toponym is related to Old Persian Armina
 * 3) there was a people of the Armani (Armens etc., as opposed to simply a region known as the "Minna mountains") in (a) the 23rd century, (b) the 15th century BC
 * 4) Urmani is also somehow related
 * 5) these names have an Indo-European etymology

What is your opinion of the Karda inscription from 3rd millenium BC refering to Kurds? Also, you know about the presents of Indo-Europeans in the Armenian Highlands during the 3rd millenium BC, from the Kura-Arax culture. Not to mention the Aryan swastika symbols identical to the ones in Indus valley they found in the Armenian Highlands. Mitani came later in 2nd millenium following Kura-Arax spread to Syria. Alex mond 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * what "Karda inscription"? Can you not just please cite your sources and refer to expert opinions? My opinion isn't any more interesting than yours, just cite scholarly literature, thank you. It is anyone's guess whether the Kura-Araxes culture was "Indo-European", some scholars have identified it with Proto-Anatolian, yes. Let's just drop the "Aryan swastika" nonsense from the beginning, shall we? And what, oh what does the Kura-Araxes culture have to do with the topic of this article, the toponym "Armenia"? The Old Persian name may or may not continue a middle Bronze Age toponym, which may or may not be related to Biblical Minni. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Indo-Europeans. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'land of Karda', it says from Sumerian inscription from 3rd millenium BC, they identify with the Kurds. Its in the Kurds page. I mentioned Kura-Araxes culture, cause it reveals the Indo-European presents before the 2nd millenium BC states and tribes of Indo-European presents, like Mitanni and Hayasa. Also Kura-Arax identified with Anatolian languages, and the spread to Northern Syria of a pottery type associated with the Kura-Araxes culture has been connected with Indo-European movement, but earlier, which is the 3rd millenium BC. So we see here ancient records identified with Armenians, and Indo-European presents also in the Armenian Highlands Alex mond 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * you apparently fail to understand that the Kuro-Araxes hypothesis is incompatible with the Armenian hypothesis. Please do some background reading before adding random pie-in-the-sky ideas to articles. dab (𒁳) 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"also read Armani"
Alex, you want to claim that the Armanum toponym in the 2200 BC text is "also read Armani". Your reference for this is "Artak Movsisyan, 'Aratta: The ancient Kindgom of Armenia,' Yerevan, 1992". What sort of reference is this? That's at best a popular summary, which should in turn give its own reference. At the very least tell us what exactly Movsisyan says, on which page. Since I have identified the inscription for you (URI 275), which would have been your job if you want to discuss it, you should now get an edition (Schroeder 1920) of this inscription and tell us precisely which are the variants, and who says that you can "also read" Armanum as Armani. Don't expect other people to do your work for you. My suspicion is that behind this is just more wild speculation that Armanum and Armani refer to the same place. Hell, they sound alike, and they sound like "Armenia". That's fine, but you have to say whose speculation this is, not serve us some hand waving claim that one is "also read" as the other. Now please give me a break and start editing responsibly, researching your claims (as opposed to doing idle google searches and repeating fuzzy statements you found on the internet). dab (𒁳) 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the Aramaic for "Armenians"?
Alex mond claims it is "Armani", but he is unable to produce the Aramaic spelling. This is a matter of plausibility: if I google სომხები, I get 559 hits. If I google ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ, I get 395 hits, so it stands to reason that these terms exist even if we don't have a watertight reference for them. But what is the spelling of this postulated Armani? Is it Armānī or Armanī or Armāni or Armani? None of ܐܪܡܢ ܐܪܡܐܢܝ ,ܐܪܡܢܝ get any hits, at all, and I cannot imagine how else you could spell "Armani", so the burden of showing that this is a real Aramaic word is clearly on whoever is making the claim. dab (𒁳) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it is Armani. I spelled it the way I saw it once in a Assyrian newspaper. All the hits your getting for  ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ (Armenia) are all Wikipedia (Aramaic). The reason your not getting anything from Armani is because the users in Wikipedia Aramaic haven't created that page yet. You won't find that much (non-Christian topics) Aramaic writing on the net. Hope that helps. Chaldean 03:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well, I readily believe this, but it would be ever so much easier if you would cite some notable dictionary up front when discussing terms in langauges so obscure that they give not a single google hit. I get 85 hits independent of Wikipedia for ܐܪܡܝܢܝܐ btw. Can you tell me whether Armani is the singular (as in Arabic), and if it is, what is the plural? dab (𒁳) 08:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous games
If you want to defend these additions, (a) read WP:BRD, (b) log in and (c) present your rationale on talk. What this addition was doing, in extremely poor format and broken English, was to provide a reference for the item
 * Armenian tradition makes Armenak or Aram the great-grandson of Haik.

which is already in the article. I'll attach the Moses reference to the existing statement. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Continous reverts
This talk is copied from the user_talk:Dbachmann to be continued here. Aregakn (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is something wrong with the referenced content that you deleted from the article? If so, why with no reasoning? Aregakn (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The exact etymology of the name "Armenia" is not confirmed, and there are various researches that list it to older toponyms or ethnonyms"? Sorry, this isn't even English, not to mention unreferenced. If you have material you wish to present for inclusion in a specific article, you may also use The Article Talkpage.


 * Please be advised that due to Long-term abuse/Ararat arev, anonymous Armenian nationalist trolling will lead to indef bans very swiftly. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Be advised, that I don't like threats thrown at me, especially when they are baseless.
 * "Isn't even English" is a claim with 0 basis. If you're a philologist, you'd have better explained that claim in a proper manner. As for now, you just made naked claim.
 * As for the other claim that the above sentence is unreferenced, I'd say is manipulation, because one doesn't need to reference the info that already is referenced in the article. You see in the division of etymology, that there are different researches about the toponym. those are referenced there. Now tell me that the sentence "The exact etymology of the name "Armenia" is not confirmed, and there are various researches that list it to older toponyms or ethnonyms" is not something that is already in the article. Aregakn (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss English grammar and stylistics with you. I fully agree that the article is already aware of the fact that the etymology of the toponym is unknown, and that there are several possibilities suggested. As this is already competently expounded in the article as it stands, and has been for years I might add, I frankly don't see what you want. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First you claim that "around 6th century BC" isn't English. Then you say the whole sentence is broken English or something. Yes you will discuss your claims or you won't make the changes.
 * I don't know what you gain by calling scientific researches speculations which is a POV, and why you do not keep it neutral so be so kind to either explain why those all are speculations, or do not change it.
 * The expression "The Armenian's own name" is totally not English that you are changing back to.
 * The change that the above and also for the country are HAYK, is totally absurd and you are just misleading and giving false information.
 * You also delete the part where it explains the roots of the native names.
 * Now explain your actions and also what causes you to delete referenced information. Aregakn (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just on the English grammar, "research" is a non-count noun. For that reason alone the English of that sentence is too poor for the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you Judith. Aregakn, you have just been given free personal tuition on one point that was wrong with the statement, which you could have looked up in any English dictionary. If by "around 6th century BC" you want to say "около VI в. до н. э." try |en|%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%20%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%B4%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D1%8D%D1%80%D1%8B.%0A this (note the article).
 * To be frank, User en-4 wasn't meant for you. You certainly have en-2, and depending on what "advanced" means possibly en-3.
 * There are many people who will be willing to fix your grammar and style for you, but you will need to change your attitude first. You do not have the right to impose content. Let alone the right to impose content that others should bloody well fix for you first. You have the right to make suggestions, and seek consensus for your suggested additions to the article.
 * So, if you have any point to make, please make it already. The article is fully aware that the etymology is uncertian, so I take it your point cannot be pointing out this fact. If you are going to claim that there is a "scientific research project" dedicated to discovering the true etymology of the name, let's see the specifics. At what university is this project? Who is heading it? Publications? --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm by you Dbachmann, is not accepted. Neither are accusations. If you see grammar problem, you correct it an this is how the rules describe, so I'd suggest Judith and you to act in accordance with them. In short, keep your bites for your own friends and not the talk-pages of articles or WP editors.
 * Now you either answer the exact problems I pointed out about the content, or your deletion shall be reverted. In short, get to the point. Aregakn (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits are wrong again so discuss before making those. Aregakn (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. I think we are done discussing user conduct here. If you think I am violating any editing rules, please take it to WP:ANI and/or Wikiquette alerts. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And I thought so too, before another attack. Now I wish to see the answers to the comments I made about the content. Aregakn (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just write here the text that you want to include, with a good academic source, and we will all consider it. If the source isn't in English we can find someone to read it but it really helps if you give as much information as possible about any universities, academic publishers, research centres etc. involved. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I made no controversial edits that were reverted. Have a look at the revert that Dbachman made and almost all of mine were made to reflect the already existing content of the article in a proper manner. 1 only that I added/chenged myself was about the native name or Armenia and Armenians. You don't need to know a lot of Armenian to see that those edits were/are correct and the later changes that were made were not correct. I don't think that for native name we need an RS if one knows Armenian at least a bit.
 * And then, no other edits that were content-edits by me. Others' referenced content-edits were changd with no discussion or rasoning so my very firstmessage was about that. Aregakn (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Adontz's rejection
I have removed this statement for this reason:

It's all right to say that one historian rejects this, but it's not relevant to the article until his rejections are explained. Everything in this article is speculation, and the article makes it clear that nothing has been proven. Naturally (and rightfully), there are many people who reject claims in this article, many historians and nationalists alike, so why mention this one specifically? Unless his rejection is explained and has a lot of weight, it's useless. This article is not about the opinion of Adontz on the etymology of Armenia, however, it can include the information that he has to make his opinion so that readers can make an opinion themselves, and to have some neutralizing elements in the article. Wikipedia is a neutral source, therefore, it shouldn't have a statement which has the goal to force the reader to accept something without explaining it (like this statement is doing). One of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia is the ability to provide readers with information which they use to come to conclusions themselves, rather than being told something that encourages them to agree with the conclusion of a person without actually explaining how the person came to that conclusion.

'' "Though this opinion was criticized and rejected by armenologist Nicholas Adontz in his 1946 book." '' This means nothing, doesn't add informative content to the article in any way. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information, not the opinion of somebody (no matter how credible that person is). This is like saying adding a statement in the article for the Armenian Genocide saying, "however, [some Turkish historian] rejects this in his 2005 book" without really saying anything about the content of the book itself, and when the article itself mentions that "many claims in this article are rejected by many Turks" (much like this article infers that everything is unproven, subject to criticism and rejected by some historians).

The correct way would be: [...]. Alternatively, due to [...], [...] and [...], Armani might not be related to Armenia at all (Adontz 1946). or This opinion was criticized and rejected by armenologist Nicholas Adontz because [...]. < reference the book instead of saying "in his 1946 book" > or something along those lines.

Since I don't own the book it references to, and have no idea what arguments Adontz uses to reject the links this article makes to Armenia, I'll let someone who has the book edit this.

(I have begun a discussion about a certain statement that comes into conflict with what I believe Wikipedia should be, and as a Wikipedia user who is trying to be objective, I ask you to not undo the edit until everyone comes to an understanding. A claim cannot be made until it has been discussed and explained, and therefore, re-inserting this statement which has a debatable place in this article before everyone comes to an understanding is just going to spark a childish edit war.)

Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" is his conclusion and is 100% equivalent to "This opinion is criticized and rejected by Adontz." It doesn't give the reader the opportunity to actually understand what reasons, arguments he uses to come to that conclusion so that the reader can decide for himself if Armani has a relation to Armenia or not. We all know that many historians reject claims in this article, the article makes it clear, therefore, this line is already inferred and doesn't add informative content to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

- :We can remove the Adontz reference if we remove any and all mention of the pseudohistorical junk regarding "Armani". Adontz is arguably the most authoritative source regarding this and his opinion holds more water than anything else. Since all mention of "Armani" in this article is merely a collection of references unrelated to Armenia and Adontz's reference is the only one mentiong that name in the context of Armenian history we either remove Armani altogether or ensure that readers can trace that toponym to a reliable source, one that is very clear: "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia". If the reader wants more information they can go and look for the book.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with Adontz. However, this statement has nothing to do with the article. "Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" should be in the reader's MIND, not in this article. And it should be based on the reasoning of Adontz, IF the reader agrees with Adontz. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, and doesn't agree with Adontz. Wikipedia is supposed to provide the information Adontz uses to come to his conclusion so that the reader can come to HIS/HER conclusion, and not tell the reader "this very influential person disagrees with this opinion." That would force the reader to come to a conclusion blindly. Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your interpretation of what Wikipedia is here for, either we back up the Armani hogwash with a reliable source like Adontz or we remove it altogether.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have reverted multiple times already, another one will result in a block. I'm adding a disputed tag to the section given how it contains conjecture from antiquated and unreliable sources that nobody in their right mind would take seriously today and because you have removed the only modern balancing reference.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you're interested or not is pointless, Wikipedia is about providing information to readers, not the opinions of somebody. Explain why Adontz disagrees with these claims and reference this book, or leave Adontz out. This article is not about Adontz's opinion, it's about the etymology of Armenia. If you want to talk about Adontz's opinion on this subject, make an article called "Adontz' opinion on Armenian Etymology" and say "Adontz believes Armani has absolutely no relation to Armenia" there. Also, I agree with the "disputed" tag, because everything in this article is disputed. However, that "modern balancing reference" doesn't EXPLAIN anything, it just says, "there is a modern balancing element to this subject." The right way to "balance" this article would be to provide the argument and sources that Adontz uses. As I repeat, this article is about information, not an individual's opinion (no matter how influential that person is, the READER should have opinion, not blindly accept someone else's opinion, without seeing the reasoning). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentronhayastan (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Helpful to give a year (decade?) for Xenophon's writing of Anabasis.
It would be helpful for context to give a year (decade?) for Xenophon's writing of Anabasis, which is c. 400 BC.

24.205.197.228 (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
Etymology section has no etymology...73.220.34.167 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Name of Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216031248/http://un.cti.depaul.edu/Countries/Armenia/1133483520.pdf to http://un.cti.depaul.edu/Countries/Armenia/1133483520.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Xenophon's Anabasis
I removed the following: "About one century after the fall of the Kingdom of Urartu, the 5th century BC Greek historian Xenophon claims that Armenian villagers spoke a language that sounded similar to Persian" which was from a self-published source (http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/index3.pdf). This claim is not actually in Anabasis (the entire text of Anabasis is easy to find online). In fact, what is in Anabasis is the following:

"After the first formalities, when Cheirisophus and Xenophon had greeted one another like bosom friends, they interrogated the headman in common by means of the Persian-speaking interpreter. "What was the country?" they asked: he replied, "Armenia." And again, "For whom are the horses being bred?" "They are tribute for the king," he replied. "And the neighbouring country?" "Is the land of the Chalybes," he said; and he described the road which led to it."

Nowhere did he say that Armenian sounded like Persian, but rather that the Greeks (Xenophon and Cheirisophus) relied on a Persian-speaking interpreter to converse with the Armenian villagers. All that this implies is that Persian was understood widely enough in Armenia that villagers could speak it. Xenophon does not comment on the Armenian language.

Clearly the information I removed misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, what Xenophon actually wrote.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

 * Both of these make use of subtemplates (I believe), so I'm not going to mess with them, I'm still learning template syntax. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  14:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)