Notes: Correspondences are regular, and the comparison seems plausible both phonetically and semantically ('sin, crime' : 'a sinful person' > 'enemy').
Notes: The PD forms demonstrates an aberration: the reflex of a "tense" *ƛ̣ (PD *ɣ); otherwise all correspondences are regular. The Lak. form is reduplicated (č̣anaḳ < *ḳanaḳ); the PWC form has a frequent prefixed *p- - possibly, a remnant of a class prefix.
Notes: Correspondences are regular (except some variations in the vowel reflexes - probably due to the influence of initial laryngeal). In PN a semantic shift "secretion (from the body)"> "herpes, eczema" had taken place.
The EC-WC comparison was suggested by Abdokov (Abdokov 1983, 84); despite numerous expressive changes in WC languages, the ultimate correspondence between EC *ɦ[a]mʒ_ū and WC *c:ʷa is quite regular.
Notes: An Av.-Tsez. isogloss; phonetically and semantically seems reliable (but PTs has here the phoneme *ʁ, very rare in genuine Tsez. roots; thus an old borrowing is not excluded).
Notes: A reconstruction *ɦărq̇wĔ is also possible (note that Lak. u-t:u- < *q̇ʷV-t:u-, as shown by an old Arch. loanword q̇ʷa-t:u- 'wide'). The initial weak syllable with laryngeal was dropped in PA and Lak., replaced by a reduplication syllable in PTs, and by class markers in Darg. and early WC (whence PWC *b-). In general the root seems quite reliably reconstructable for PNC. See Абдоков 1983, 144.
Notes: A Nakh-Lezg. isogloss. In PN the 1st syllable was reduced, and the laryngeal transferred into Inlaut, which conditioned a non-trivial development of *ʒ in the cluster. Nevertheless, the etymology seems rather probable.
A similar form exists in Tsez. (mecra 'enclosure for milking sheep'), but the nature of the initial m- here is quite obscure (the rest corresponds well to the PL form).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular - except that we would rather expect *ǝ̃ or *ĩ, not *ã in PTs (since PN has a long vowel here). Thus it is not excluded that the PTs form was borrowed from early PA.
Notes: An interesting common NC root (sometimes contaminating with *nhewƛ̣_ŭ 'sleep, dream' q.v., but surely different, because reflexes of these two stems are opposed in many languages). PWC has a frequent labial prefix. The original meaning (preserved in many languages) is "dream, slumber"; Andian languages demonstrate a non-trivial semantic development "dream" > *"vision" > "cloud". Phonetically the Andian forms fit in very well, and the word has no other etymology, thus it seems worth to accept such a semantic change.
Notes: The comparison seems quite reliable; we have to suppose an original vowel between *-n- and *-š- (lost in PEC) to account for the preservation of n- in PWC. See Abdokov 1983, 99.
Notes: The root has changing class prefixes (or their reflexes) in Av., PTs and PD; it is hard to determine in this case whether this is is an archaism or an innovation. Phonetic correspondences are regular (except for the vowel -i- in PL, where one would rather expect -ä-; this is probably due to the PL Ablaut *ä/i).
Notes: An interesting cultural term - despite some phonetic problems, undoubtedly common NC. Cf. also Hurr. ošχo(-ne) / ušχu(-ne) 'silver' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 46-47), where -šχ- regularly goes back to the cluster *-rc-. The early PHU form *Hwercχ- (reflecting an intermediate stage in the process *-rc- > *-rcχ- > *-cχ-) was borrowed in Proto-Kartvelian as *werc̥1̇χl- (the comparison of PK, PWC and PEC forms was first suggested in Charaya 1912, 11). A similar form exists also in Semitic (Proto-Semitic *ḥrṣ); it is therefore impossible to suggest a simple loan from Indo-European *rǵnto- in Caucasian languages - to say nothing of enormous phonetic problems arising with this supposition. Although some Caucasian forms may have experienced Indo-European (Indo-Iranian) influence (see above in the WC section), it seems rather more probable that PIE had borrowed this archaic Near Eastern root, which on Indo-European ground had contaminated with the pure Indo-European root *Har(ǝ)ǵ- 'light, white'. The root reveals a "floating" labialisation: some forms are best explained by a protoform *ɦĕrVcwĭ (PL, with spirantization of *-c-, PWC), some - by *ɦwĕrVcĭ (Av.-And., PD, HU). It is interesting to note the Ossetian name of 'silver': ävzīst / ävzestä (having penetrated into Fenno-Ugric: Udm. azveś, Komi ezyś, Hung. ezüst, see Abayev 1958, 213). The Indo-European etymology of this word (see ibid.), belonging to Petersson, is very dubious, and it can also have a NC source (reflecting the original labialisation).
Finally it is interesting to note the similarity of this root and PNC *rĕwcwĭ 'gold, red copper' (q.v.): perhaps it is possible to think of an archaic word-derivation with a laryngeal prefix.
Notes: The EC-WC comparison see Балкаров 1964, 100, Шагиров 1977, 282, Абдоков 1983, 143. The original stem was probably nominal ('a hollow, hole', cf. the situation in PL), but in most languages the stem became adjectival (more rarely, verbal) and obtained class prefixes. The class prefixes in this case replaced the initial laryngeal which is not reflected anywhere except PL.
Notes: The root is not widely spread, but correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems secure.
The WC (Adygh) form had been compared by several authors with several different EC roots: PA *mizV (see under *wɨlʒwV) 'big stone', Arch. mač̣a 'flint', Lak. nuwč̣a id. (see under *mHōK(V)ć̣V), Ud. žeI 'stone' (with an uncertain EC etymology); see Trubetzkoy 1930, Rogava 1956, Abdokov 1983, 96. For phonetic reasons the present comparison seems to us more appropriate than the rest.
Notes: The semantic shift 'graze' > 'feed, eat' is frequent and easily understandable. The initial laryngeal can be reconstructed on basis of Av., Lak. and PTs data; it tends to be replaced by class markers (when the root is functioning as a verb), and in PN the weak syllable with the laryngeal was lost altogether.
In some cases it is hard to distinguish between reflexes of *ɦĭfV 'to guard, graze' and *HŭqwV 'to preserve, take care of'(q.v.) (this confusion is made, e.g., in Abdokov 1983, 88); the latter root,however, is certainly distinct in PL and PWC, and must be reconstructed as such.
Notes: The PN form is reduplicated. PTs *ʔǝgV- reflects *ʔVrgV < *ɦĭgVrV- with a typical adjectival reduction and metathesis of -r-. The second vowel is unclear (labialisation in PWC may reflect a labialised vowel or a former class affix).
Notes: The pure root is reflected only in Av. and some Andian languages. All other languages reflect either a derivate (with a productive suffix *-lV), or some old compounds with unclear second components (PC *-q̇V, PA *-(ro)χi, PD *-χa). Correspondences of the first part are quite regular (note the specific development *ha- in PA and *ʕɔ- in PC - reflecting a secondary labialisation *ɦʷimV- < *ɦimV-), and it seems worth reconstructing for PEC.
We must note the resemblance of PEC *ɦimV with Semitic (cf., e.g., Arab. ħimār 'ass, donkey'). The Arabic form was probably directly borrowed only in one language (cf. Kar. Tok. ħamar which stands apart from all other Andian forms), but it may be an old Wanderwort common to both East Caucasian and Semitic languages.
