COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. One of the verbs with root laryngeals. The root is attested only in four languages, but one should keep in mind that this semantic field is rather scantily represented in field recordings.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Despite the root's expressive nature (leading to frequent reduplications), the etymology seems generally plausible.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular. There may have been a vowel variation (or Ablaut) *-eƛu / *-uƛV - to account for the PA form *ʔan-ƛV- < *han-uƛV- (although actually the -u-vowel is reflected only in Cham., and the forms of other languages may reflect a protoform with other vowels).
A continuation of the same stem (cf. its PA shape *ʔan-ƛV-), with a further addition of an expressive preverb *č̣-, may be PTsKh *č̣aʎ- (~-L-) > Tsez. č̣aʎ-, Gin. c̣aʎ- 'to hear, understand'.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The word could have denoted some kind of ritual singing (cf. the derived stem *(ʔV)ƛ̣wVlV, meaning frequently 'learning, knowledge').
COMMENT: One of the common NC nominal roots with changing class prefixes. In some modern languages the root may have been influenced by reflexes of another NC root, *büg_a 'side, waist' (q.v.) (due to the phonetic development *-g_- > -Ł_- in PEC). See Абдоков 1983, 144, 184.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is preserved only in Eastern Dagestan languages (Lak., PL, Khin.), frequently in compounds with *jĕrḳwĭ 'heart' (whence Khin. ḳur-).
COMMENT: Appears in reduplicated form in PL and Lak.; the PA form is a reduction < *ʔVq:ʷo-ji- (with a semantic development 'yellow' > 'white, light, blueish'). The Darg. forms point to original class prefixation. See Абдоков 1983, 148.
COMMENT: Trubetzkoy (1930, 89) compares the WC form with PEC *=ĭmʒ́Ĕr 'to bake, roast' - which should be rather compared with PWC *źʷV id. The correspondences between PEC *=ĕrc̣V and PWC *zʷa are quite regular; the original meaning must have been 'to heat' (whence both 'to roast' and 'to boil' can be easily deduced).
[There is a possible parallel in Lezghian: PL *ʔä(r)c̣:V 'to dry', reflected in Tab. je=c:-uz, Ud. ec:-esun. The consonantal correspondence, however, is quite irregular: we would either expect PD *=erc̣- and PL *ʔä(r)c̣V, or PD *=erz- and PL *ʔä(r)c̣:V-. Perhaps, original *=erz- in PD was influenced by *c̣a 'fire' and obtained a secondary glottalisation? In that case we should rather reconstruct *=ĕrʒ_Ŭ for PEC. Note that PN *q-arc̣- and PWC *zʷa can go back to either of these protoforms.]
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PL form goes back to *=ĕwʎwV (with an assimilatory development), which explains the weak *-ʎ- (otherwise *-ʎ:- would be expected).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Tsez-Lezg. correspondence is quite plausible; in Darg., however, irregular is the loss of *-l-conjugation. This makes us suspect that the Darg. form may be alternatively compared with PL *ʔelḳ[ɨ]- 'to finish; to stop breast-feeding' (Tab. k:ud-u=ḳ- 'finish', Ag. ḳ-irḳʷ-, Bursh. k:-erḳi- id., Rut. s-i=rḳa- 'stop breast-feeding').
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. It is very tempting to compare also Lezghian data: Tsakh. Mishl. eḳi-n 'sharp' (Mik. eḳ-aʔas 'to sharpen'), Kryz. ʕaq̇- 'to sharpen, whet', Bud. eq̇i 'sharp'. However, the uvular in Kryz and Bud. ( = velar in Tsakh.) points rather to PL *ƛ̣ (*He(m)ƛ̣ɨ-), while from PEC *=ēmḳ_V we would expect PL *He(m)ḳɨ-. Perhaps Shakhdagh q̇ here is secondary, under the influence of the initial laryngeal?
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Eastern forms (Lak., Darg.) demonstrate the semantic development 'to sow' > 'to sift, screen' (cf. Russ. сеять - просеивать).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Medial -r- must be reconstructed to account for the correspondence PA *-χ:ʷ- : PL *-χ:ʷ- (otherwise PA *-χʷ- -in case of *-ēχ_wV, or PL *-χʷ- - in case of *-ēχwV - would be expected). All the languages attested, unfortunately, do not usually preserve Inlaut resonants in verbal stems.
COMMENT: The excessive labialisation in PD and PWC should be explained by a fusion with the class marker *w. Otherwise correspondences are regular. The root should be kept distinct from PNC *=äƛĔ(w) 'to put' and *HraʎwE 'to scatter' (although some confusion between them was, of course, possible).
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 238, 243; 1930, 279; Абдоков 1983, 180.
