COMMENT: Loss of *-r- in PL is secondary (probably because of pharyngealisation and the position before a lateral). Except this, and the rather usual metathesis in PWC (*Ĺawǝ < *waLǝ), correspondences are quite regular and the root seems securely reconstructable for PNC. See Trubetzkoy 1922, 241. Klimov (1971, 224-225) proposes to consider Georg. bur(w)aḳ- 'pig, piglet' as a Nakh loan which seems rather probable. Abdokov (1983, 114) compares EC forms with PAK *bLaná 'doe' which raises serious semantic objection (Ad. Lawǝ is also cited, but only in a foot-note).