Notes: An expressive root with an exceptional phonological structure RVRV. The tendency to avoid such root structures probably had led to adding the suffix *-c̣V in the Lak-Darg. area. We can now only guess as to its original meaning: cf. perhaps PNC *=ic̣Ă 'to give, put' (cf. expressions like Rut. miz wɨs 'to lick' = 'to give tongue' etc.). Anyway, it is hard to separate the And. and Lezg. forms (going back to *ɫamV) from Lak-Darg. (going back to *ɫVmc̣V).
The front vocalism in PD *lemc̣ could have been conditioned by the influence of PD *mec: 'tongue' (see *mĕlʒ_ĭ). It is interesting that the stem *lemc̣, in its turn, had influenced the root for 'tongue' in PD which gave rise to the coexistence of two stems: *mec: and *lec:mi (*lemc:i) in Dargwa dialects.
Notes: Initial *ɫ- is proved by the PL and Gunz. forms. In PN and PD class prefixes were added which led to the shift of *ɫ- to the stem's end; the inanimate class prefix *r- > *d- was later petrified in PN. Processes like this are quite usual for adjectival and verbal roots. In general the etymology seems quite plausible.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. Av. laga 'body' was probably twice borrowed in Arch.: first as *lagǝ > lági 'belly' (with a shift of meaning) and more recently as lagá 'body, body part'.
Notes: See Abdokov 1983, 77. Cf. also Hurr. lēlǝ 'ear' (Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 53) which fits well as a reflex of the reconstructed NC form (actually, the Hurr. form is the reason for reconstructing *ɫ and not *l in PEC).
The cluster *-Hɫ- is reconstructed tentatively; if -lǝ in the Hurr. form is a suffix, we could also reconstruct *ɫĕHe.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Despite some irregularities (Av. -ħ- instead of the expected -q:-, variation *l-/*r- in PL), the PEC reconstruction seems probable.
Notes: The root is rather restricted geographically and has a peculiar shape (as well as non-standard reflexes of medial *-mb-), thus old borrowing is not excluded (however, the source is not clear).
Notes: One of the cases of PEC front fricatives corresponding to WC affricates, which is probably explained by a fusion of the root with a prefix in PWC (*ƛǝ < *T-ʎǝ). Otherwise correspondences are regular, and the comparison seems reliable. Note also the exact parallelism of the compounds: PAT *xǝ-ćǝ = PA *ʎir-c̣inHu < PNC *ʎĂl(H)V + *c̣ǟnHV.
Notes: Correspondences are fully regular. See Abdokov 1983, 77. Note that the alternative comparison of PAK *ʎaq:ʷá with other Lezg. forms (Ag. lak, Tab. lik) - see Trombetti 1923, 366, Bouda 1950, 293 - is absolutely untenable.
Notes: The root is not widely represented, but seems phonetically and semantically quite reliable. See Abdokov 1983, 77 (And.-WC). [Cf. Austric: PAN *laña 'vegetable oil', PAA *lǝń 'fat']
Notes: A significant common NC cultural term. Correspondences are quite regular (except that in Lak we have to suppose a delabialisation *ʎwɨ̆ʔwV > *ʎɨ̆wV > *xawa > šʷa [with reduction]). See Abdokov 1983, 112 (Lezg. : WC; the author, however, cites also some totally unrelated forms like Arch. iƛ, Av. roƛ: and Ud. šum).
