Notes: The suffixless form is reflected in Khin. (ḳizä < *Ł_ărV) and PWC (with a regular loss of resonant). PA and PN reflect a diminutive *Ł_ărV-ḳV (in PA with addition of a further suffix, *-ɫV: *Ł_ărV-ḳVɫV > *ƛ̣:anḳal(a)). Palatalisation of *Ĺ in PWC is, as in several other cases, caused by the early merger of *L and *Ĺ in PWC.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Some languages (some Darg. dialects, Khin.) reflect suffixed forms (with *-bV and *-dV, originally probably plural or collective).
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 242 (with some confusion of *Ł_ēmV and *ƛ̣_ǝrHV q.v.). The same confusion is present in Abdokov 1983, 128, who also tries to compare PAK *ʎamǝ́ǯǝ 'bridge'. However, the morphological structure of the Adygh form is not clear (see Shagirov 1, 250), and the correspondence EC *Ł_ : WC *ʎ is irregular, so this comparison should be rejected.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PN form is a dissimilation < *lal(a)ta; PA *ƛ̣:ilṭu < *ƛ̣:ildu. Cf. also Hurr. kadǝ 'barley' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 28).
Notes: The semantic correlation "skin":"colour" is observed also in several other roots, thus the etymology is fully justified. The phonetic side of it is also quite regular (in PWC we should expect *L - a phoneme which lacks as such, and must have merged early with *Ĺ).
In WC languages the root is verbal, in EC - nominal; the only trace of its verbal usage is perhaps a Lak. form (recorded in the Khosrekh dialect) =u=k:a-n 'to paint'.
Abdokov (1983, 77) quotes also Kab. La,q:ʷǝ-La 'inner side of skin' (which he compares with heterogeneous EC material, having nothing to do with the present root); if it really exists (we could not find it in existing dictionaries), it may be a remnant of *Ł_ŏli with the meaning 'skin'.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. Cf. also the HU parallels: Hurr. lula-χ:ǝ 'foreigner' ( = PN *lōlu-χaw), Ur. lul-ue 'foreigner, enemy' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 48).
Abdokov (1983, 88) compares the Andian forms (with the secondary meaning 'parent-in-law') with Ad. ṣʷǝ- in ṣʷǝ-gʷāš́ 'mother-in-law', ṣʷǝ-pš́ 'father-in-law'. These forms, however, being quite isolated in WC, should be rather analyzed as metaphoric compounds meaning originally 'fair princess'/ 'fair prince'; at any rate, Ad. ṣʷ- (going back to PWC *c̣ʷ) can not correspond to PEC *Ł_.
Notes: The EC-WC comparison seems rather probable (note also the recurrence of meanings 'hard' and 'severe, proud' in both subgroups of NC). The protoform can be reconstructed as *Ł_wĕrV (without class prefixation) or as *=iŁ_wĕrV (in the latter case the PTs and PD forms must be considered as most archaic). The initial labial in PWC (which has caused the usual dissimilative delabialisation of the following consonant) also can be regarded as a former prefixed class marker.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Initial w- in Lak. is not quite clear (unless it points to *u-, nasalized in other subgroups). It is interesting to note the Darg. word for "snake": Chir., Kub. maIlʕun - it could well be related to this root, but presently must be analysed as an Arabic loan: Arab. malʕūn "accursed, the accursed one, devil". This may be regarded as a case of contamination of a genuine root with a recent loanword.
Notes: As in many other cases, the PWC form has underwent a dissimilatory delabialisation (*q:ʷ > *q: after the initial labial). Otherwise correspondences are regular.
Notes: Although it is not excluded that some of the above forms are old interdialectal borrowings, correspondences are regular and the PNC reconstruction seems plausible.
Notes: Correspondences are regular: in PWC a usual denasalisation of *m- before a (former) medial liquid, and delabialisation *ƛʷ > *ƛ after a labial initial. Not quite clear, however, is the denasalisation (m- > b-) in the Lak. dialectal form. The comparison seems quite reliable both phonetically and semantically.
Notes: An interesting common NC root. Correspondences are fully regular (including a regular loss of *m- in a WC verbal root). Cf. also HU: Urart. meš- 'to collect', mešǝ 'tribute' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 22).
