COMMENT: Cf. also the HU evidence: Hurr. tem-ari 'irrigation ditch, canal' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 25). The original meaning must have been 'pipe, kennel ~ blood pipe, vein'. The PC form suggests rather short *-ă- against the WC evidence implying long *-ā-; however, since the form is attested only in Gunz. and the vowel is nasalized (nasalisation often shifts vowel reflexes), we prefer to reconstruct a long vowel in PNC.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is of Iranian origin (cf. Avest. taoxman- 'seed; kin', Pers. tuχm id. < PIE *teuk-men-), but must have been borrowed very early, because modern reflexes can not be deduced from late Iranian forms, and have considerably changed semantically and phonetically.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Vowel correspondences are not quite clear; perhaps Gunz. -a- is Bokarev's misspelling instead of -ɔ- - in that case this would be a case of PEC *-ŏ-.
COMMENT: The EC and WC forms can be compared if we assume an assimilation *darǝgǝ > *darǝdǝ in PAA, which seems possible. The correlation between PNC *tīrungV and PIE *torkʷ- 'spindle; band' (WP 735) is still to be investigated.
COMMENT: This demonstrative root (used for far deixis and opposed to *dV q.v.) is common for the Eastern Dagestan languages (Lak., Darg., PL). A trace of it in the Western area is perhaps PTsKh *ti-ʎ 'inside' > Tsez., Gin. teʎ (the adverb "inside" is often built from pronominal stems, cf. Av. žá-ni-b, PA *ħi-nV etc.).
COMMENT: An expressive, but common EC root with quite regular correspondences. A reduplicated variant ( > PA *tʷotʷo, PL *tutuj) can also be reconstructed.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite reliable. The Lak. forms provide a bridge between the basic meaning 'wing' and the derived (often with expressive reduplication) meaning 'butterfly'.
COMMENT: The type of laryngeal in the cluster -Hn- can not be established precisely, because in two critical cases (PD and PL) the root underwent an influence of *nĕmʒ_i 'louse' (PD *neṭ - cf. PD *nez 'louse'; PL *näṭ - cf. PL *näc̣: 'louse'). All other correspondences are regular, and the root can be safely reconstructed for PNC.
COMMENT: The etymology seems quite reliable, although there are usual in roots of this type (with two stops) assimilations and dissimilations (PN *dab < *ṭab < *ṭaṗ; PWC *tǝpǝ < *t:ǝpǝ). The root must have denoted originally some wooden or woven vessel.
COMMENT: It is hard to keep the PL form apart from the rest, although PL *-k- is quite irregular. This may be due to a contamination with another EC root, *tāḳwV (q.v.): indeed, the reflexes of the two roots are complementary distributed within Lezghian: *ṭak(a) is present in Ag., Rut. and Kryz., *taḳʷ(a) - in Lezg., Tab. and Bud. Otherwise (besides the easily explicable assimilative glottalisation in Ub.) all correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems reliable.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Not widely spread (attested only in three languages), but the correspondences are regular and the reconstruction seems plausible.
