COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Inspite of the root's expressive nature, the reflexes are fairly consistent (both semantically and phonetically).
COMMENT: Not very certain, because in PN the root is present only within a compound (and underwent irregular changes; especially unclear is the medial -r-). The Darg.-Tab. isogloss is of course secure, but the PEC antiquity of the root is somewhat dubious.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for the metathesis (a frequent phenomenon in roots of this structure), correspondences are regular.
It is very tempting to compare also Av. ṭiq̇:ʷá 'horseshoe; sole of foot', Chad. ṭuq̇:é-n 'horseshoe'. However, dialectal forms (Andal. uq̇:a) show that here ṭ- goes back to Proto-Avar *ƛ̣- (*ƛ̣iq̇:ʷa). The comparison is thus possible only if we assume a non-trivial assimilation in Proto-Avar: *ƛ̣iq̇:ʷa < *ṭilq̇:ʷa. The inclusion of the Av. form (paradigm B: ṭiq̇:ʷá-dul,ṭuq̇:-bí, Chad. ṭuq̇éni-l,ṭuq̇-bí/ṭuq̇ná-l) would allow to make the PEC reconstruction more precise: *ṭɦä̆lq̇_wā ( ~ -ǝ̄).
COMMENT: One of a series of roots sounding like *KVNTV / *TVNKV and meaning 'drop, spot' (see also *ṭVnḳǝ̆,*ḳwɨmṭV,*ḳanṭV). All of them are clearly expressive and tend to contaminate with each other. The root *ṭHänḳŏ, however, is the only one having parallels in WC. See Abdokov 1983, 103.
Cauc. > Osset. (Dig.) ṭink,ṭing 'drop', see Abayev 1979, 356.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular, and the NC etymology seems reliable. The nasal (*-n-) in PA is probably of a secondary (suffixal) origin. Perhaps we should also relate here Tsez. ṭaḳi 'few' (with a velar suffix - old diminutive?). See Абдоков 1983, 185.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Not very widely spread, but phonetically reliable. It is interesting to note the dialectal Lak. (Khosr.) form ṭinx 'pimple'; since literary Lak. has ṭink, the Khosr. form must be borrowed from some Lezgian source.
COMMENT: PN has *d- instead of the expected *ṭ-: this must be explained by the influence of other metal names (PN *dašVb 'gold', *datVb 'silver' q.v.). Otherwise correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite satisfactory. See Abdokov 1983, 102 (Av.-And. : WC; the author also cites, however, a non-existant Darg. ṭabs 'copper' and Lak. ṭi 'bronze' which can not belong here).
COMMENT: The Lak. form and part of Lezghian forms are reduplicated (Lak.ṭuṭi < *ṭumṭi); otherwise correspondences are quite regular. The root must have originally meant 'kernel, fruit-stone', whence, on the one hand, meanings like "grape", "plum" and "peach", on the other hand - "marrow".
Klimov (1964, 181) marks the similarity of PN *ṭum with Kartvelian *ṭwin- "brain"; it is most probable that the Kartvelian root is an old loanword from NC.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite reliable. See Abdokov 1983, 117 (EC : Kab.).
One feels tempted to compare this root with PEC *dHogwV 'donkey, ass' (q.v.), spread in the Lak-Darg-Lezg. area (all the forms could be united under a single protoform *ṭHōgwV, assuming some metatheses and possibly interdialectal loans); however, there still remain semantic and phonetic difficulties, and the question is still open.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive root (although the relationship of Av.-And., Lak. and Ag. forms is obvious). The 1st syllable vowel is hard to reconstruct. In Lak. -k- (instead of -ḳ-) is either a result of secondary dissimilation, or of contamination with ṭink 'pimple, rash' (see *ṭimƛwV).
COMMENT: The word is attested only in Rutul and HU: cf. Urart. ṭirusi (Urartian spelling), turuza (L.-Hier. spelling) "a vessel and capacity measure for liquids" (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 27).
COMMENT: An interesting Nakh-Ub. isogloss; borrowing is hardly possible (there are no direct Nakh-Ubykh contacts, and the appearance of the words excludes direct borrowing), thus the root may go back to the PNC level.
