The development of PIE *VRy in Old Armenian remains a topic of controversy, with available evidence pointing to either VyR or VRǰ. This paper argues that the regular treatments are *aRy > ayR, *oRy > oyR vs. *VRy > VRǰ, where V = {i, e, u}. In addition to the examples from the standard reference works (since Pedersen 1906), more recent etymological proposals by Olsen (1999), Martirosyan (2010), etc. have been taken into account and evaluated against the latest PIE reconstructions. The first of these two changes has been associated with terminological confusion in the scholarly literature, where it is variously labeled metathesis, anticipation (both in eg. Martirosyan 2010:733-734) or epenthesis (eg. Ravnæs 1991:33-39). Since metathesis can cover a sequence of multiple changes, while anticipation describes only one step in that sequence, I argue in favour of the latter term. The [j]-epenthesis before a consonant, a typologically common change (Kümmel 2007:265-266), implies regular palatalisation; the nonsegmental component of the palatalised consonant later became a full glide segment due to the shift in timing of articulatory gestures. Thus, for the famous example ayl 'other' < PIE *ál-yo-, the crosslinguistically best supported and phonetically most plausible sequence of changes is *[alj(j)o] > *[ajljo] (change in timing) > *[ajlo] (elision of offglide) > *[ajl(o)] (segmentalisation of onglide) > ayl. A similar sequence of changes may be assumed for *oRy > oyR, eg. boyl 'company' < PIE *bholy-. Instances of *y > ǰ in the environment *{i, e, u}Ry include sterǰ 'sterile' < PArm. *ster-ya- < *stér-ih2- and kamowrǰ 'bridge' < *kammur-ya- < *gwm̥bhur-ih2-. Among alleged counterexamples, the often cited ołǰ 'whole' may be easily explained as *(h)olǰ(o)- < *solwyo , where ǰ is the regular outcome of the cluster *wy, as in ar̄aǰ 'first' < *pr̩h3w-yo-m or *pr̩h3w-ih2 . In light of the numerous examples of *aly > ayl, it is concluded that PIE *l did not only give PArm. *ł and *l, but also *lj /_y. Interestingly, this last reflex may have left graphemic traces: as early as 1911, Meillet (see Ravnæs 1991:93) called attention to the peculiar fact that some older manuscripts show an unusual version of the grapheme <ł> with superposed diacritic rather than the expected , as in nšoyl 'light'. This symbol could then indeed represent a third lateral sound [lj], which only later in the postclassical period fell together with l.