COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Tsezian languages reflect a compound, where the first part goes back to *ƛ̣_wiɫē (with -n < *-l through dissimilation), while the second part < PEC *q̇_wăɫV 'saddle-girth' q.v. See Trubetzkoy 1922, 241.
COMMENT: Both in PD and PL the root is present within a compound with *c̣ajɨ 'fire'. The PN reflects the root as a durative verbal stem (term. stem would be *lap-).
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular, and the EC-WC comparison seems quite satisfactory. It is, however, not quite clear whether PWC keeps a trace of the initial resonant (*l-) or has lost it, having later added a dental (class) prefix. See Dumézil 1933, 15, Abdokov 1983, 100.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is reflected only in three languages from different subgroups, thus the reconstruction is not very reliable.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Nasalisation in PTs points to medial resonant, lost in PD and PL: this could be only *-l- (lost by dissimilation). Correspondences are regular, except for metathesis in PL (which was rather recent, judging from the preservation of c- in word-initial position).
COMMENT: Although the root is not widely spread in EC, the correspondences between Av., Tsez. and WC are quite regular, and the PNC reconstruction seems reliable. See Abdokov 1983, 83-84 (with some confusion of several EC roots, but containing the basically correct comparison of Av. ras and WC forms).
COMMENT: This is a common EC inclusive 1st person plural pronoun. It is preserved as such in Av.-Andian languages, in some archaic Darg. dialects (Chirag), Khinalug and most Lezghian languages. In PTs it has superseded the old exclusive pronoun *ži and has become the only 1st person plural. The same process must have occurred in PN (where there is no trace of *ži) - the morpheme *Lǟ > *lχō > *tχō became the only 1st person plural pronoun. Later, however, a new inclusive pronoun (*waj - originally from the 2d sing. *u_ō, "with you") was introduced in PN, and *tχō became, in its turn, exclusive.
The paradigm of *Lǟ can be reconstructed as *Lǟ-(n) (dir. - cf. PL *Łä-n, Khin. ki-n, PN *tχō), *La- (dat. - cf. PL *Ła-, PN *tχa-), *ʔīL- (gen. - PL *-iŁ-) and *ʔēL- (erg. - PN *ʔāχu). The Av.-And. and Tsez. forms for the most part reflect the original ergative (and/or genitive) stem.
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 239; 1930, 273 (although there is hardly any connection with PAT *ħa- 'we').
COMMENT: An interesting Tsez-Darg. isogloss - although not very reliable (because it is preserved only in two languages). With a regular shift *l- > PHU *t- cf. perhaps also PHU *tiw- : Hurr. tiwe 'word; thing'; Ur. ti(j)- 'to say', ti-nǝ 'name' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 53). If this parallel is correct, then Darg. luʕi and Inkh. loje must be regarded as an archaism, lost in most modern EC languages. [Note that Av. raʕi 'word', cited ibid., does not belong here, being a derivate of ráʕi-ze < *-ĭq̇Ē 'to hear'].
COMMENT: The phonetic and semantic correlation between the PEC and PWC forms is quite satisfactory. The PWC form, however, may also correspond to another PEC root with the same scope of meaning (see *ɦămḳi 'grain, fruit-stone). We must wait for some new evidence to resolve this question.
COMMENT: Phonetically the correspondence between PC *rɔḳV, Lak. laḳija and Tsakh. luḳon is exact; semantically these words can be united, if we assume the original meaning 'stalk' ( > 'dried stalk and other materials used as fuel' (birch bark is very good for firing).
COMMENT: The PWC form has a frequent labial prefix *b(ǝ)-. The etymology seems both phonetically and semantically satisfactory. We must note that the Av. final -i more often goes back to *-ē (in this case we would have *č́:, not *ǯ́ in PWC); sometimes, however, it may reflect the nominal suffix *-Vj, which is probably the case here.
