COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The consonant *-q- gives more or less regular reflexes (with some variation in Aand.); however, the root vowel is quite impossible to reconstruct. This is due to the expressive nature of the root and, perhaps, to a partial contamination with PEC *ʔuq_wV q.v.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Andian evidence is in favour of reconstructing the original structure *-VCV (with changing class prefixes), but there is not enough evidence to reconstruct the precise PEC vocalism.
COMMENT: PWC has a frequent labial prefix (former class marker). The verb as such is preserved in PWC and PD; other EC languages reflect a derivate *r-V̄q̇Vr 'forage, fodder'. See Starostin 1985, 78-79.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is spread only in the Eastern Daghestan area (PD, PL, Khinalug). There is not enough evidence to reconstruct the vocalism.
COMMENT: Within EC we can reconstruct *-cw- or -s-; the hushing correspondence in WC suggests that it had been *-cw-. This is, however, the only example of the correspondence EC *cw : WC *šʷ (in other cases WC has a voiced reflex *žʷ), thus the comparison is not very secure.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The verb is well preserved in Nakh, Av., Tsezian and Darg; however, the vocalism is impossible to reconstruct (probably due to distorted Ablaut).
The Lezgian languages have preserved only the old derivate *ruʁV-nV (with metathesis *nuʁVrV) "wound" ( > PL "pus"), reflected also in Av. ruʁun "wound" (Chad. roʁón; Av. > And. ruʁun, Akhv. ruʁu) and PTs *muχru "birth-mark" (PGB *muʁru > Gunz. muʁru, Bezht. Tlad. muhro). Another old derivate from the same root is *rVrʁV "fight, war" reflected in Av. raʁ (gen. raʁú-l) and PD *derʁ (Ak. derʁ, Chir. derʁ, Ur. dirʁ, Kub. dīʁ etc.). A variant *d-VrʁVn is probably reflected in Akhv. dĩʁi 'wound'.
Abdokov (1983, 188) compares WC forms: Abkh. a-ʁá, Abaz. aʁa 'enemy' (PAT *aɣa), as well as Kab. (archaic) āʁ 'angry' which we were unable to locate in existing sources. The comparison is tempting, but for WC one must reconstruct *aGV, with *G not corresponding normally to EC *ʁ - unless the AT forms are actually borrowed from Adygh (in which case a reconstruction *aʁV is also possible). Additional information is required to clear up this situation.
COMMENT: In some languages the root is interacting with the reflexes of *-V̄wʎ_wĔ q.v. (which is close semantically and phonetically); the two roots are, however, certainly distinct and opposed in several subgroups. The WC form has a frequent labial prefix (going back to a class marker).
COMMENT: Most of the WC reflexes have the petrified prefix *p-, with a typical dissimilative loss of labialisation after it (but the labialisation is preserved in the PAA reflex *pǝšǝ- < *pǝʎ́ʷǝ-). Within EC the root is known only in Av.-And. and Agul, but correspondences are regular and the reconstruction seems probable.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is no doubt archaic, although not very widely spread (which is the reason for the uncertainty of the vocalic reconstruction).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The verbal stem itself is preserved only in a few languages (Nakh, Tind., Bezht., Darg.). Very well represented, however, are two common EC derivates: *r-ĕŁō 'threshing, grain ready for threshing' and *m-ɨ̄(r)ŁV 'threshing board'. PA *bilimV (corresponding to the latter form) is probably a metathesis < *mili-bV (with *-bV as a former plural affix). If our analysis is right, we have here another case of the PEC instrumental prefix *m-.
COMMENT: A well represented common NC verbal stem. The vocalism is hard to reconstruct: this may be due partly to the fact that in EC two verbal stems have merged together (see also *HVrs_A).
COMMENT: The EC-WC comparison see in Абдоков 1983, 143 (the author quotes also some other EC forms which we were unable to confirm in available sources). [Cf. 2222!!!]
COMMENT: The root is well preserved in WC languages; however, the only close EC parallel is the isolated Udi form (ta-desun), and the NC antiquity of the root (as well as its precise PNC phonetic shape) is uncertain. See Trubetzkoy 1930, 279; Абдоков 1983, 182.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root has many variants (with Ablaut and preverbs), especially in the Nakh and Av.-And. area, which makes it difficult to reconstruct vocalism. In several subgroups it tends to contaminate with *=iṭVl 'to drop, drip' (q.v.), which makes it sometimes difficult to attribute particular forms to *=V̄ṭwV or *=iṭVl. Still the two roots are opposed in several languages, and should be distinguished, at least for PEC.
COMMENT: A reliable common NC root (although because of reductions of the initial syllable and absence of reflexes in most Andian and Tsezian languages it is hard to reconstruct the first vowel).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive verb, so it is rather hard to make a precise reconstruction (except for the tense root consonant *q); still it seems very probable that all the listed forms are related.
