COMMENT: The root is reflected only in three languages, thus the PEC antiquity is somewhat dubious. However, it can be possibly related to PWC *pǝtǝ 'kitchen' (Ub. pǝt, Adygh. pǝt; Shagirov's etymology in Shagirov 2, 39 - from pǝtǝ-n 'to be an extension of smth.' - seems rather uncertain), if we assume an assimilative deglottalisation and semantic development 'some kitchen vessel' > 'kitchen'.
COMMENT: Av. pic̣: > Arch. pic̣ 'resin'. The EC-WC comparison see in Абдоков 1983, 185: it seems rather probable if we take into account the archaic meaning "juice" preserved in AT.
COMMENT: An Av.-Lezg. isogloss. Abdokov (1983, 111) compares the Av. and Arch. forms with PAK *pábźa (Ad. pābź, Kab. pābźa) 'bushes, dense growth' which is phonetically improbable (see Shagirov 2,7 on the possible morphological structure of the PAK form).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The B series in PTs could suggest a laryngeal in PEC (*pHĭrpi), but there is no trace of it in any other language; it is possible that Khvarsh. pepe is a result of secondary assimilation ( < pipe), which would allow us to reconstruct *pipe A for PTs.
COMMENT: The Nakh form is an obvious compound; the first part of it goes back to PEC *ɣōnʡV 'pear, fruit' q.v.; thus *ʁam-maʁa < *ʁan-paʁa with assimilation. The Lak. form can also be a loan from Avar (especially considering its meaning), but the rest of the forms correspond to each other quite regularly and must be genuinely related.
COMMENT: The root reveals some secondary shifts of laryngeal features (usual for roots with two stops); some reflexes (PL *put, Khin. pɨt, Abkh. á-pčʷa) go back to a variant with both stops unvoiced (*pɨ̆twV).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Pharyngealization in PD is probably secondary (due to the root's expressive nature). Lak. pur reflects *purh (from earlier *pulχ: with a regular reflex *χ: > h).
COMMENT: An expressive root; however, there are no doubts in its NC antiquity (see Trubetzkoy 1930, 279). The Av. form has been borrowed into Lak. (parχ učin 'take wing') and Darg. (parχ-buqi arces id.), possibly also into Arch. (parχ-bos).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for PEC. An expressive stem with numerous irregular changes. The suffix *-ɫV is rather common, but *-χV is unusual (possibly originally a locative morpheme?).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. In the Anlaut there occurs a variation *p-/b- (probably *p- > *ṗ- through assimilation and then again > *b- through dissimilation - a process typical for roots containing two stops).
The meaning 'hollow stalk, tube' in Lak. provides a necessary semantic link between 'vulva' in Western languages and 'penis' in Aghul; cf. also the meanings in Darg. dialects.
COMMENT: A typical "culture word". Although similar words are widely spread in the Caucasus and nearby regions, only the Av.-And. and WC forms can be regarded as genuine. The Tsezian forms (Tsez. birus, Gunz. bǝrus, Bezht. boʔos, Khvarsh., Inkh. buruc; note that Av. Chad. burúš, because of its phonetic structure, is most probably a back-loan from Tsezian languages) are more or less recent loans from Av.-And. languages; the Av. word is also borrowed in Kum. purus. There is also a number of quite enigmatic forms: Bagv. Tlond. perec̣:, Ud. penec: 'plough' which are probably also borrowed, but the source is not clear. We should also mention Lezg. bazu "pole of the plough", obviously connected with Az. bazɨ id., but without a certain etymology (cf. the WC forms).
COMMENT: An expressive (onomatopoeic) root, common for many NC languages. The problem of its NC antiquity is hard to solve; we may note that the correspondences are more or less regular (of course with some distortions, usual for onomatopoeic roots). See Абдоков 1983, 185.
COMMENT: The root is widely represented and, inspite of its expressive nature, behaves strictly according to phonetic correspondences. In PWC nasalisation is a remnant of the original Inlaut resonant; labialisation of the second consonant is lost, as very often, in dissimilation to the preceding labial consonant. It is interesting to note the exceptional preservation of the laryngeal in some Av.-And. languages, perhaps pointing to a PEC variant with a rare structure *ɦṗĭlc̣_wǝ̆.
A loan from Lak. or Darg. (with expressive irregularities) is Tsakh. Gelm. ṗaIlč̣ 'eye secretion'.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. The meaning 'blood vessel' is reconstructed because of the correlation 'blood' (in most languages) : *'vessel' > 'throat, gullet' in PTs.
COMMENT: The comparison seems generally plausible, but there are some unclear points probably explained by the root's expressive nature. It concerns especially the Avar form, where one should suppose a specific loss of *ṗ(V)- before the following laryngeal.
