Greek, Armenian, and Albanian
Greek, Armenian, and Albanian (Draft)
Sean Whalen
July 6, 2026
That Greek, Phrygian, & Armenian are closely related in https://www.academia.edu/37962055 & Greek and Albanian are related in https://www.academia.edu/26388048 . The question of whether Greek is closer to Armenian or Albanian is somehow controversial. Neither pairing would be exceptionally close at first glance, & I don't think any perfect tree can be described (likely because several IE languages, like Thracian, were part of it but were lost, most with little attested evidence). Neither is as close as, say, Balto-Slavic, but only Armenian has the intermediate of Phrygian to explain the distance. Few dispute Greek & Phrygian being close (Plato mentioned that 'dog' & 'fire' were close, even to a non-linguist), and Phrygian had b, d, g > p, t, k like Armenian. Albanian *r̥ > ri \ ar matches Celtic, but rounded by W (ujk ‘wolf’) & *N > *a like Greek. Both Ar. & Al. are mostly satem-type, not all exceptions known to be regular.
This still leaves room for arguments about specifics, but my problem is that some who favor Greek and Albanian as closely related ignore others' evidence entirely. In https://www.academia.edu/4197641 Hrach Martirosyan presents a large number of words said to be cognate, most showing Greek is closer to Armenian. Though I disagree with some of his etymologies & details, even taking only those words with certain relation supports his idea enough (when others, like Kortlandt, had already given quite a bit already).
However, Giulio Imberciadori ( https://www.academia.edu/125381480 ) said, "Alb. shows a greater proximity to Gk. than to Arm. (cf. Pisani 1959:135)." He has far fewer examples than Martirosyan, and citing works from 1959 is almost pointless, considering how much work has been done on both Al. & Ar. since then. I have a few problems with his ex. & ideas, regardless of how each one would effect his theory either way.
"E.g.: use of *me- as a verbal prefix in Alb. (merr ‘take’) and Phryg. (με-βερετ ‘bringt mit’).". There is no certainty that this ety. is right; why m- not **mb-? In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marr the ety. of G. meíromai 'receive as one's portion' or "*marna, a deverbative from Proto-Indo-European *méh₂-r̥ (“hand”)"; indeed, even if from *me-bhr-ne-, this would not match any other IE form.
"2.1.2. derr m. ‘pig’.. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. χοῖρος m. ‘piglet; pig’ < *g'hoi̯ro- ‘id.’" Yet it is not "exact" in this theory, since "Alb. -rr requires extra explanation—generalized from the def.acc.sg. (Neri in DPEWA s.v.)?" In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derr "from *ǵʰer- (“to be excited, bristly”) (compare Latin horrere (“to bristle, tremble”))." Since horr- is from *g(^)hr-s- (cognates point to alt. of gh & g^h, no known cause) these might both be < *g^horsyo- (no other ex. of *rsy).
"2.2.1. bathë f. ‘broad bean’.. Pre-form *bhuh2-hxn̥ -k'eh2-... Gk. φακός m. ‘lentil’... The extension of the underlying adj. *bhéu̯h2-hxon- / *bhuh2-hxn-́ ‘swollen’ through the suffix *-k'ó- only occurs in Alb. and Gk. (Neri 2024:194-6)—shared morphological innovation." This is a certain match, but an origin in *bhéu̯h2-hxon- (or *bhéwH2-Hon-) seems extremely unlikely. I don't like most of Neri's ety., & I doubt many linguists would think that *bhuh2-hxn̥ -k'eh2- is the source. This also fails to explain apparent *k^ > k \ s in *bhak^- > G. phakós ‘lentil’, phásēlos ‘bean’, Al. bathë ‘broadbean’ ( https://www.academia.edu/169757082 ).
"2.2.3. thelb m. ‘core’.. *k'ól-u-h1-bho- is most closely comparable to Gk. κέλῡφος n. ‘pod, sheath’ < *k'él-u-h1-bho-s-... ‘covering / covered’". I'm not sure that *-uH1- would become -0- in Al. Greek had kolumph- & kolumb- 'dive' (as 'cover > submerge'). Al. also has variant thelp.
"2.2.4. thellë (i) ‘deep’.. Exact match with Gk. κοῖλος ‘hollow’ < *k'ou̯hx-i-lo-. Exclusive connection, since Arm. soyl ‘hollow’ (< *k'ou̯(hx)-lo-) stays morphologically apart.". This is a completely ridiculous claim that seems based on the idea that *w > g always & everywhere in Armenian. See variants like arew -u- 'sun(light)', areg 'eastern / of the sun'; *pewyo- > ogi \ hogi ‘soul/spirit’, *pew-aH2- > hewam ‘breathe heavily'.
"2.3.1.4. For another case of Balkan-IE back-formation, see Alb. një ‘one’ ~ Arm. mi (gen.sg. mi-oy) ‘id.’ < *smii̯o- ← fem. *sm-ih2- / *sm-ii̯éh2- (Klingenschmitt 2022:33-4; Matzinger 2012:151)." Others say një < *onyo < *H1oyno-s. I'm not sure, but is any other *my > *ny known? Why *sm- > *m-?
"2.4.1. leh ‘scream’.. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. λάσκω ‘scream, ring’ < *l̥h2-k-sk'e/o-... with generalized i-umlaut." Where would i-umlaut come from? He related "Ved. rā́yati ‘screams’", which implies *laH2(i)-. I think *laH2i-ske- > leh makes more sense.
"2.5.2. trim ‘boy, (young) man’.. Exact and exclusive match with Arm. tʻarm ‘young’ < *tr̥mo-." Likely true, but why *r̥ > ri before nasal? Most > ar. If cognate with Sanskrit táruṇa- 'young', Greek τέρην \ térēn 'soft, delicate, gentle', stem téren- \ τέρεν-, τεράμων \ terámōn 'becoming soft by boiling', Lithuanian tar̃nas 'servant' then the number of affixes makes it hard for more specific analysis.
"2.5.3. verë f. ‘wine’ 2.5.3.1. Exact and exclusive match with Gk. οἴνη f. ‘vine...". Armenian gini 'wine', gine+ seems to be < *woiniH2-. In a work dedicated to this very question, is *-aH2 vs. *-iH2 reason to ignore one side?
"2.6.3. Alb. dial. dredh m., Arb. dredhë f. ‘strawberry’—A semantic isogloss with Italic?.. an exact and exclusive match in Lat. frā́ga pl.n. ‘strawberry’ < *dhr̥hxg'-eh2- (Pisani 1959:129)." Correct Arb. > Alb. If Sanskrit drā́kṣā- 'grape, vine, raisin' is related, maybe < *draH2g^h- (Italic had some d-gh > dh-g: Oscan fangva- 'tongue).
"2.6.4.2. bung m.. (a type of oak).. Traditionally traced back to PIE *bheh2g/g'-° ‘beech’, which otherwise only in Gk. (φηγός) underwent a semantic shift to ‘oak’ (Danka/Witczak 1995:128)... Formal problems.. only under the assumption of two irregular / sporadic sound changes.. Danka/Witczak (1995:128); AE:112-3; AED:41-2 (to PIE *bhu̯eh2- ‘be(come), grow’)". It's 'sessile oak (Quercus petraea)'. If rel. G. φυτόν 'plant; tree' (apparent *bhuH- > *bhHu-), Germanic *bauma-z 'tree', then *bhHu-nako- (or similar) might fit.