A suffixed form of the same root can be reconstructed for PNC as *ćVnV-ḳwV 'a k. of sickle, scythe'. It is reflected in PEC as *č̣inVḳwV (with assimilation), and in PWC as *čʷVmVgV. Cf. for PEC: Av. Chad. č̣iníḳ, And. (Khaidakov) č̣iniḳ, Bezht. Tlad. č̣iniḳ, Khosh. c̣iniḳ, Gunz. č̣iniḳ (PTs *č̣iniḳ), Lak. č̣iniḳ, Darg. Chir. č̣inaḳ 'scythe', PL *č̣inaḳʷ (Ag. č̣ineḳʷ, Lezg. Khl. č̣anag 'sickle', Rut. č̣inaḳʷ, Tsakh. č̣inaḳ, Arch. č̣iniḳʷ 'scythe'). Some of these forms may be borrowed from neighbour languages, but at least the PL form and either Av. or Lak. are probably genuine and go back to PEC. For PWC cf.: PAT *čǝbǝgV (Abkh. a-čbǝ́ga, Abaz. čbǝg), PAK *č́amáǵǝ (Ad. š́amaǯ́, Kab. šamaǯ), Ub. č́amáǵ. The Ub. form is probably borrowed from Ad., but the PAT and PAK forms are genuine cognates.
Osset. cäväg 'scythe' is explained by Abayev (1, 306) as a derivate from cävyn 'to beat' (which itself is etymologically obscure, see ibid.); therefore he regards the WC forms as borrowed from Ossetian, and this hypothesis is accepted by Shagirov 2, 137. However, the Ossetian source can not explain many phonetic features of its Caucasian counterparts (in particular, nasalisation present in most NC forms). It seems to us much more reasonable to suppose that the Ossetian form itself was borrowed from a Caucasian source (cf., e.g., PAT *čǝbǝgV with secondary denasalisation). Later it was, in its turn, borrowed in some EC languages: cf. Cham. čag (Gig. čagi), God. čogi 'scythe' - forms that are absolutely irregular compared to other EC forms, and can be easily derived from a source like Proto-Ossetian *čavag. See Starostin 1985, 81.
