COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is attested only in three languages, but seems to be archaic. [? Cf. Austric: PAN *haŋit, -ŋiC 'anger' (?+ *qaNiC 'skin'), PAA *nVt 'afraid, angry']
COMMENT: A common NC nursery word. Note its use in nearly all subgroups (PA, PD, PC, PL) to denote "pupil of the eye" (either in compounds with the word 'eye', or independently) - a common typological treatment of the pupil of the eye as "child in the eye" or "doll in the eye".
COMMENT: An interesting case. The root must have originally meant simply "two" and formed part of the suppletive paradigm of the PNC numeral "two" (*ṭq̇Iwä - *näwš_i). The original meaning is preserved in PN and HU: cf. HU *šin 'two' > Hurr. šin-, Ur. šî-šǝ ( < *šin-(i)šǝ), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 37. (Note that both in PN and HU the root is metathesized). But probably already in PNC the root was used also to denote a two-year-old animal; it is only the latter function in which it was preserved in most modern languages. The Nakh languages present here an important link, because they have preserved the root in both functions. Phonetically the comparison is satisfactory (PL has a form with a frequent *-j suffix; weakness of -š- should be best explained by an intermediate form *nišʷaj < *niwš:-aj). Some problems are raised by -č́- in WC (instead of the expected -š́-; perhaps the affricate reflects here the rare Inlaut combination -wš:- ?).
COMMENT: A universally spread nursery word. However, the correspondences are good (both phonetically and semantically) and the root may have existed already in PNC. See Abdokov 1983, 86. See also the non-reduplicated stem: PNC *ʔānV.
COMMENT: An And-Lezg. isogloss. Y.Testelets suggests to compare also Tsez. eʎu (possibly < PTs *ʔɨ̃ʎu 'bilberry'. This would rather favour a reconstruction like *Hʎ_wenV; but the difference between the root structure in Tsez. and PA is still to be explained.
COMMENT: One of the best preserved common NC roots. Correspondences are regular (except the Av. paradigm A - since Nakh languages do not show here any trace of any laryngeal, and there is no pharyngealisation in PL, PD and Lak., it must be secondary).
COMMENT: Except for a secondary assimilation in PWC (*maq:ʷǝ < *naq:ʷǝ) correspondences are quite regular. Both semantically and phonetically the etymology seems quite plausible. Attempts to compare the Adygh forms with different Caucasian material (Osset. mäḳʷǝl / bäḳʷäl 'stack', Georg. magoli etc. - see Abayev 2, 85, or with Arch. maḳʷ 'thistle' - see Shagirov 1, 265) - seem in every respect less acceptable.
Abdokov (1983, 110-111) compares the EC forms with *-qʷa in PAK *xʷǝ(r)-qʷa 'chaff' (with *xʷǝ- 'millet' in the first part), whence Ad. (Bzhed.) fǝr-q:ʷa, Kab. xʷǝ-qʷa. Although the semantic match is exact, the phonetic side raises some questions (tense *q:ʷ would be expected in PAK). It is possible that *maq:ʷǝ 'hay' and *-qʷa 'chaff' actually represent a single root, with a secondary distortion within a compound with PAK *xʷǝ- 'millet'.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PN form *naṭq̇u probably reflects an original plural form (*naṭq̇u < *na(w)q̇-ṭu < *nĕwq̇-dV). In PL and Darg. there occurred (for expressive reasons or due to a rare cluster *wq̇ ? ) a strengthening of the word: they reflect a variant *nĕwq̇_ŭ. The medial -r- in PD is obviously secondary, probably having penetrated there from an original plural form in *-r, being later substituted in PD by the *-bi-plural.
The old Ablaut *nĕwq̇ŭ / *nĭwq̇V̆- in this root has remained only in PGB (where the obl. base *mɨq̇a- < *nĭwq̇V̆-). Obl. bases like Arch. nibqi- or Tab. niwq:u- in this case are ambiguous (in Arch. - because of the neutralisation of vowels in the first accentless syllable, in Tab. - because of the merger of *ä and *i).
COMMENT: A very interesting common NC root. The original meaning 'dark, blue' in several subgroups developped to 'blue metal' > 'iron' (on the possible explanation of this semantic change see above, in the WC section). The PN form meaning 'iron' (*ɦāχḳi) can be explained best of all if we suppose a laryngeal prefix : *nHǟƛ̣_wV̆ 'blue' - *h-nǟƛ̣_ū (or *h-ǟnƛ̣_wV̆) 'blue thing, metal' (cf. the same archaic derivational model in the pair *mĭʒ_V 'sweet' - *H-mĭʒ_ū 'sweet thing, honey'). In that case we can also relate here (from the derived noun) a local EC root meaning 'horseshoe' (the semantic development is natural: cf. numerous cases like Darg. meχ 'iron; horseshoe' etc.):
PTs *heƛ(u) A: Tsez., Gin. hiƛu (PTsKh *heƛu); Gunz., Bezht. heƛ (PGB *heƛ); PL *Häƛ̣:(a), reconstructed on basis of a relic form: Rut. äg 'horseshoe'.
Finally, another derivate from the same root may be PEC *nɦäƛ̣_wV 'gadfly, horsefly' (possibly as a "blue insect") q.v.
COMMENT: In PTs *m- is due to the influence of *moṭo 'face' q.v. See Trubetzkoy 1930, 277, Abdokov 1983, 79 (although there is some confusion of PNC *nHǟṭV,*nHēmdV and *ʔĕndū, all of which must be kept separate).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Khin. form obviously belongs here, although the metathesis eng (instead of *neg) is not quite clear; other languages do not allow to reconstruct any root structure except *RVCV. All other forms are completely regular.
Abayev (1958, 544) suggests some Caucasian source (connected with Khin. eng) for Osset. inǵɨn 'curds'.
