Notes: Cf. also Hurr. χu/ob-idi- "boy; calf" (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 18). The root is not reflected in PL which preserves well medial clusters with resonants; thus it is possible also to reconstruct *HurbV̆ - a form really close to PIE *orbho- (but despite Shagirov 1,181-182 the direction of borrowing - from IE or vice versa - is still to be established). The root belongs to a number of stems common to several linguistic families of the ancient Near East: besides IE and NC, cf. also PK *obol- 'orphan' (Климов 1965, 149-150).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Like many other birdnames, clearly onomatopoeic (and rather universal, cf. Rus. удод etc.); but the correspondences seem to be satisfactory and the reconstruction seems rather probable.
Notes: A reliable common NC verb (it should be distinguished from *ɦifV q.v.; some confusion is introduced by the fact that *f yields a uvular reflex in some languages).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. It seems possible that the PN form is not genuine, but borrowed from PA (*-i- in PN is not quite regular); however, since the word has a rare structure HVCVCV, and vowel reflexes in such structures are not yet thoroughly studied, the question is still open.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is attested only in three languages (therefore the phonetic side of reconstruction is not very certain); the correspondences are, however, regular and the comparison seems quite reliable.
Notes: The Nakh-WC comparison was proposed by Balkarov (1969), and seems quite probable both semantically and phonetically (despite criticism, and several alternative - rather fantastic - etymologies of the WC forms; see Shagirov 2, 122-123). We should note, however, that within EC the root is reflected only in PN and PA, which makes the reconstruction of vocalism and the initial laryngeal uncertain. The PWC form has a usual labial prefix, with a regular delabialisation *č̣́ʷ > *č̣́ after it.
Notes: Since the PWC root contains a lateral fricative, the comparison with PN *-oll- and PA *ʔiʎ- seems quite plausible (note also the precise semantic correspondence). Other attempts of comparison (PAK *ʎxʷa- : Lak. lūʁi xun 'to breed' /Bouda 1950, 293/, PAK : Lezg. χu-n etc. 'to be born' /Balkarov 1964, 100-101/ e. a. - see Shagirov 1, 254-255 with literature) should be abandoned.
Notes: The root is expressive, and similar to several other EC roots (cf. *HVq̇_Vr 'to drink', *=Hoq̇_V 'to sink', *=HVq̇_wVn 'to swallow'). The Darg. form is somewhat dubious (the PD reconstruction is not certain, and unclear is the loss of *-l-conjugation); still the Avar and Lezgian forms have to be separated from other similar roots.
There can be also reconstructed an expressive noun *G_HwVlṭV 'a gulp, mouthful' - very probably derived from *HV_lGwVl, with an expressive suffix *-ṭV. Cf. PN *q̇urṭ / *q̇orṭ (Chech., Ing. q̇urd, Bacb. q̇orṭ,q̇lorṭ), Lak. q̇Iulṭ, Darg. Chir. ʁIurṭ.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is not widely represented, thus the reconstruction is somewhat dubious (there is not enough evidence to reconstruct the vowel).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. In Bezht., Lak. and Khin. n- and m- probably go back to class markers, nasalised due to the influence of the lost Inlaut nasal. In Lak. -r- is either a trace of this nasal, or rather a former adjectival suffix (muIrš:i- < *muIš:(V)-rV-). The PEC vocalism is hard to reconstruct.
Notes: A Tsez.-Khin. isogloss - the reconstruction is therefore very uncertain. We must also note Kryz. jinḳä 'stone trough', which is quite isolated among Lezghian languages and may be an old loanword from Khinalugh.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The correspondence of laryngeal features can be best explained if we assume a glottalized *ṗ with metathesis of glottalisation in Lak.
A similar root exists in Kartvelian, cf. PK *abed- 'tinder' (Klimov 1964, 43) and in various IE languages (Germ. *bilt-, Slav. *bъdlo, Lat. betula).
Notes: A Nakh-WC isogloss (there are no traces of the root in the languages of Dagestan). Cf. also HU: Hurr. uɣǝ 'pig' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 60).
See Trubetzkoy 1934, 277, Shagirov 1, 237-238, Abdokov 1983, 118 (also listing Akhv. aχʷa-ƛ:i 'wild': this is certainly wrong, because Akhv. preserves old affricates. Besides, the Akhv. word is most probably a reduction < awlaχV-ƛ:i, cf. Akhv. Tseg. alaχi-ƛ:i, Ratl. alaħi-ƛ:i and Av. awlaq: 'steppe, wild place' - obviously a Turkic loanword).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Perhaps we should reconstruct rather a form like *HVrq_Vn- or *HVlq_Vn-, to account for *q: in PL (normally *q or *χ: would be expected).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Archi q̇a-t:u is an exact parallel for Av. ʕo-do-. The root is not very widely spread, and the first syllable is often reduced (because of suffixes and its adverbial character), so the vocalism is hard to reconstruct.
