Comments: Av. paradigm B (žalá-l,žála-l). Resemblance to some Turkic forms ( < PT *jal 'mane') is purely accidental (Kumyk and Azeri - two languages from which the word could have been loaned - both have jal, not žal or ǯal).
Comments: Cf. also And. (Khaid.) že 'today' (representing the pure root); Akhv. že-reše, Kar. Tok. že-rexina 'this year'. Except the Andian form, all the reflexes are compounds with *q̇:ʷiʔi 'day', *ƛaHi 'day, time' or *rišin 'year'.
Comments: Av. paradigm B (žerʁá-dul,žerʁá-bi). Initial ǯ- in modern Andian languages is rather strange and makes one suspect that the word can be in fact a borrowing from a Nakh source (in Chech. and Ing. the literary spelling is with ž-, but in fact many dialects have preserved the common Nakh ǯ, whereas in Av.-And. the shift *ǯ > *ž occurred very early).
Comments: Cf. also úrhis:a-žo id. In modern Av. the component -žo here is perceived as žo 'thing' ('red thing', 'inner thing'); this is obviously a folk etymology, and Av. -žo = PTs *žebu etc. It is interesting to note also Arch. žan 'spleen' which must be a borrowing from old Avar (but contaminated with Av. žan / < Pers./ 'soul').
Comments: The morphological structure of the stem in Andian languages (components =ar-, =er-, =egʷ-) is not quite clear. Still, the relationship of Av. žem- (stem II) and PA *-Vž- (stem I) is very probable. Kar. (Arch., Rach., Anch.) has also a stem žem- 'to wrap', which is most probably borrowed from Avar.
Comments: Av. paradigm B (žulí-l/žulá-l,žulá-l; Chad. žulí-l/žulú-l,žulá-l). Tindi has preserved only a compound with heƛ̣:ab 'root'. Cf. also Cham. Gig. zala 'rod, stick, rib'; Kar. eseboƛ: žʷala 'rib' (lit. 'side stick') = Cham. esib-zala (Gad. esi-zala) id.
