COMMENT: The root structure is best preserved in PD. Avar has reduplicated the root, in PN (Chech.) the initial weak syllable was reduced (*lV- < *=iŁV-). Correspondences between EC languages allow to reconstruct a lateral root consonant *Łw, which corresponds to the lateral in PWC. The only problem is loss of labialisation in PWC (we would rather expect a form like *ĹʷV), which happens also in a number of other verbal roots - perhaps as a result of phonetic interaction with former class markers. See Абдоков 1983, 158.
COMMENT: The PWC form must be analysed as consisting of the old class marker *d- + the root, with subsequent metathesis of glottalisation (*ṭǝʁʷa- < *d-ǝq̇ʷa-). The EC-WC comparison seems quite plausible phonetically and semantically.
In EC the root interacts actively with *=arq̇Vr 'to reach' and *=ǝ̆q̇wVn 'to be enough, sufficient', but there seems to be a good reason for keeping all these three roots apart.
COMMENT: The Av.-And.-Darg. comparison is rather secure, but the WC parallel is uncertain (because of some semantic differences and several possibilities of reconstruction in PWC). There exists a similar root in PEC - *=irq̇_wVr 'to break, tear' (q.v.); the two stems may be connected by an archaic prosodic alternation.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular (except for the assimilation *ʔirʎ:al > *ʔirʎ:ar in PL), and the EC-WC comparison seems quite plausible. See Абдоков 1983, 175.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for some resonant interaction (PD *=imχ:Vr < *=irχ:ʷVn, variation in PL) correspondences are regular, and the reconstruction seems reliable. Pharyngealization in Lak. may be secondary, but may also reflect some weak initial laryngeal (or laryngeal prefix) in PEC.
COMMENT: We may suppose a borrowing either in Lak. from Darg., or vice versa; still, the Av.-And. parallel makes the PEC reconstruction probable. The PTs form is reduplicated.
COMMENT: The etymology seems satisfactory, although there are some unclear points. Cf. also Urart. ašj- 'to capture' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 36). Perhaps it would be better to reconstruct *-ǝ- as the main vowel (and to consider *-i- in PL as a later Ablaut grade). Since the meaning "to touch" occurs in EC languages, the comparison with PWC *śV (*šV) seems plausible, although loss of labialisation in PWC is still to be explained (there are several cases like that among verbal roots).
COMMENT: A Lak-Lezg. isogloss. The position of PN *=aš- 'to melt' is uncertain. It does not fit very well into the PNC root *=ĭc̣wĂr- q.v., but it also does not correspond quite regularly to the Lak. and Lezg. forms with -s:-. Perhaps we should reconstruct *=ic_wVn (the reflex of *-c_w- in PN is actually unknown and could well be -š-). The matter requires further investigation.
COMMENT: One of the common NC verbs of motion. Labialisation in Av. š:ʷe- (reflecting Av.-And. stem II) is probably secondary ( < *š:uʔ- ~ *š:oʔ-), since other languages do not reflect it. Cf. perhaps also Urart. aš- 'to flee, to leave' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 38).
COMMENT: A widely spread common NC stem. For PEC we can also reconstruct a reduplicated stem *twVtwVr- (cf. PA *-itit- = Lak. ta-ta-), also witnessed in a nominal derivate *twVrtwV(-lV) > Lak. tartala, PC *tǝtu.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root demonstrates different Ablaut grades (*-i-/*-e-/*-u-). The isomorphism between Av.-And. *b-uṭV 'part', Lak. b-aṭu-l- 'separate' and Darg. Chir. b-iṭal 'part' suggests that the derivate *w-ĭṭV (*w-ŭṭV) can also be reconstructed for PEC.
Cf. also HU *ṭiṭi- > Hurr. tid- 'to share out, to separate', tidenni 'sharing out, re-division of land', Urart. ṭiṭj-u/ošǝ 'share, (movable) property' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 27).
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular. See also PEC *=V̄ṭwV 'to pour, soak' (which is close semantically and phonetically, but should be still distinguished as a separate root). Cf. Абдоков 1983, 150.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level; cf. also Hurr. it:- 'to go (away)' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 28). Correspondences are regular. Abdokov (1983, 183) compares PAK *dǝdǝ- 'to run (at once, momentarily)' (Ad., Kab. dǝdǝ-n), which is possible if we assume a secondary deglottalisation.
COMMENT: Most languages reflect the stem *-iwƛ̣Ĕ- (with class prefixes; the variant without class prefixes is probably reflected in PN dur. stem *la- with vowel reduction); the Ablaut grade *-uwƛ̣Ĕ is reflected in some Lezg., And. languages and in Darg. See Абдоков 1983, 165.
Some Lezghian languages reflect a derivate *ʔiƛ̣i-n > *ƛ̣in meaning 'oath' (cf. Lezg. q̇in, Tsakh. ḳin). It seems thus quite proper to compare HU forms: Hurr. el(a)mǝ 'oath', Urart. elm-u/ošǝ 'vow' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 33).
COMMENT: A very secure (both phonetically and semantically) common NC cultural term. See Абдоков 1983, 179. The alternative comparison (Balkarov 1964, 99) of the WC forms with Av. q:ʷ-, PA *χ:an- (note that Av. and PA are actually different roots) 'to mow' is untenable for phonetic reasons (the PWC velar can not correspond to a PEC uvular).
