Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The reflex *-š in PN (Chech. marš) is explained either by a special position of *čw after -r-, or (which may be more probable) by contamination with PN *marš 'muzzle, snout' in Chech.
Notes: An expressive root, liable to metatheses and irregular transformation. Seems, however, to be genuine. (In a funny way, Musayev lists a Darg. word from the Muir. dialect: q̇urmaIw 'mouse' (sic!)).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The word is ultimately of Indo-Iranian origin (cf. Old Ind. madhu- etc.); however, it must have penetrated into East Caucasian rather early - late Iranian forms (like Osset. myd) can not be accepted as the source of borrowing.
Notes: An interesting trisyllabic root with metatheses (rather usual in this case). Not quite clear is the reason for devoicing in PWC (regularly *ʁ́I(ʷ) would be expected); otherwise the correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite plausible.
Notes: Phonetically the PN and PL forms are in good agreement; however, the comparison raises some doubts. This is because there is a number of similar (phonetically and semantically) forms in several EC languages, which may have been confused and contaminated (due to expressive meaning). Perhaps we should also note Rut. miq̇I 'cow dung', Tsakh. mɨq̇I (Gelm. miq̇I), Bud. neq̇ 'dirt' which could alternatively be compared with Chech. mēq̇alg.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. As often with names of wild herbs, it is difficult to reconstruct the precise meaning of the root; phonetically all the forms correspond well to each other.
Notes: A specific trisyllabic structure (perhaps originally some compound), which resulted in some non-trivial changes (loss of the medial velar consonant in most languages, except PN). A probable (also irregular) transformation of the same root can be discovered in Tab. c̣i-hinč:, Düb. c̣i-mirč 'flint' (with PL *c̣aj 'fire' as the first component) - although the precise PL form can hardly be deduced from Tab.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for some confusion in PL (due to merger with the reflexes of *maGwV̄ q.v.), correspondences are regular.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. A very stable and regular root, which is probably explained by the importance of nettle in the East Caucasian household (it is frequently added to all kinds of food).
Abdokov (1983, 108) compares the EC root with PAK *pča-sanǝ / *pča-sǝranǝ 'nettle'; the word is rather obscure, and the phonetic correspondence between EC and WC is irregular, so this etymology should rather be rejected.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. Cf. also a possible WC cognate (*bǝq:Iʷǝ 'frame, skeleton'), which, however, can also be a match for PEC *bonq̇_ō 'back' q.v.
Notes: In PEC this root is probably the basic name for the birch-tree. It should be strictly distinguished from *mĭhV (probably, "alder") and from *wēqwV ("asp" or "poplar"), although they tend to contaminate and have similar reflexes in many modern languages. See Abdokov 1983, 106.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Since PD *b- in this case can not correspond to m- in other languages, we have to assume a metathesis *buḳumV < *muḳu-bV (probably with a former plural suffix). For the meaning "wind" in Darg. cf. 'cold wind, wind' in some Lezg. languages.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (medial *-r- is confirmed both directly by PL *-r- and indirectly by the consonant reflex in Lak. and PD).
Notes: Correspondences are regular. In WC we observe a regular development *m- > *P- before the following non-nasal liquid, and a usual secondary dissimilatory delabialisation after a labial. Both semantically and phonetically the etymology seems reliable.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. Note that neither of three similar roots used for "oak-tree" in Tsezian languages (*moqV/*noqV,*niχV and *moh) can reflect PEC *mħŏq_we, and all of them have, in fact, different EC etymologies (see *mĕlG_wɨ,*nīχ_V and *mǝ̆hwV).
In the Darg-Lezg. area the root *mħŏq_we also is used as a second part in a compound meaning 'small nut' (PD *s:il-mik:ʷ > Ak., Ur. sirmug, Kub. s:il-mik:(ʷ)a, Kharb. plur. sirmuk:ʷe, Tsud., Muir. sirmuk; PL > Tab. Düb. halmuqI, Kand. amluqI, Lezg. šümäʁ); the first part of the compound is not quite clear.
Abdokov (1983, 111) compares the EC forms with PAK *qʷa- in *qʷaħǝ 'boat, ship' (Ad. qʷǝħa, Bzhed. qʷāħǝ, Kab. qʷǝħ) and *qʷa-sʷá (Ad. qʷāśʷa, Kab. qʷāfa) id., as well as PAT *maqʷǝ-da 'bough, branch'. While theoretically possible, this comparison is semantically dubious, and the loss of *m- in PAK is hard to explain.
Notes: An expressive, scantily represented and rather unreliable root. We think that it still has to be postulated, but must have contaminated with *mHīrq̇_wV 'dirt, rust' q.v.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root (as seen directly from the PN form) has a complicated laryngeal structure; the cluster with -n- must be reconstructed to account for the change *m- > *n- in PN.
