‘Nose’ in Armenian

Abstract

Armenian has two main signifiers for ‘nose’, k‘it‘ and pinc‘, both remaining obscure. Presumably, they have no Indo-European origin. Body-part names usually are not borrowed. They present predominantly genuine (or substrate) forms, including ideophones, based on internal resources of the language, or terms, shaped through semantic shift of metaphors. Incidentally, the essential part of the Armenian body-part names includes lexemes of the clear IE provenance.The paper attempts to summarise the relevant material on and trace the possible background of the above terms.

Next-to-leading logarithmic QCD contribution of the electromagnetic dipole operator toB¯→Xsγγwith a massive st

“…For completeness, we also list the order α 0 s result which takes into account the remaining contributions of the operators O 1 , O 2 and O 7 . Usingm c = m c /m b , one gets [7,35] when adapted to the operator basis in eq. (1.2) dΓ (0) remaining…”

On Muzzles and Faces: The Semiotic Limits of Visage and Personhood

“…One might speculate about the presence of a linguistic anthropological pattern, according to which words designating the human animal face are shaped in relation to a semantics of the eyes, sight, vision, gaze, etc., whereas words designating the non-human animal 'face' are shaped in relation to a semantics of either the mouth (like "muzzle" and its cognates) or the nose, like "ῥύγχος" and its cognates. A further element of this dialectics is, perhaps, the fact that the words designating the muzzle with reference to either the mouth or the nose are frequently ideographic and onomatopoeic, linked with the natural and unintentional activity of breathing rather than to the cultural and intentional activity of looking [13]: Armenian "pinč", "nostril, nose"; Middle Armenian "pinč ‛ -k ‛" (pl. ); Armenian dialects: "pinč ‛", "p ‛inč ‛", "binč ‛", "b ‛inj'", "pinč", "psnč ‛", "bdnč", "p ‛anč'", etc.…”