% pubman genre = article
@article{item_3318417,
title = {{Bactrian $\chi$ϸ$\omicron$$\nu$$\omicron$ {\textquoteleft}(calendar) year, (regnal) year{\textquoteright}}},
author = {Scarborough, Matthew},
language = {eng},
issn = {1474-0591},
doi = {10.1017/S1356186321000079},
publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press},
address = {Cambridge},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-07},
abstract = {{Since H. Humbach{\textquotesingle}s Baktrische Sprachdenkm{\"a}ler (Wiesbaden, 1966) the main etymological proposal for Bactrian $\chi$ϸ$\omicron$$\nu$$\omicron$ {\textquoteleft}(calendar) year, (regnal) year{\textquoteright} has been A. Thierfelder{\textquotesingle}s suggestion of a loanword from Hellenistic Greek $\chi$$\varrho$ό$\nu$$\omicron$$\varsigma$ {\textquoteleft}time{\textquoteright}. In this article the plausibility of this etymology is re-examined, and it is further argued that it should be rejected on the grounds that the formal phonological differences between the potential Hellenistic Greek source form and its presumable loan-adaptation form in Bactrian are inconsistent with what is known of Bactrian diachronic phonology.}},
journal = {{Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society}},
volume = {31},
number = {3},
pages = {599--607},
}