COMMENT: Correspondences are regular (although there is not enough evidence for vocalic reconstruction); the reconstruction seems reliable despite the fact that the root is not widely spread in EC. See Shagirov 1, 82, Abdokov 1983, 113-114.
COMMENT: The historical unity of the Nakh and Av.-And. forms is quite obvious, so the word goes back at least to PEC. Other forms are less secure: we could find the Tsakh. and Khin. forms only in Khaidakov's somewhat unreliable word-list, and the Abkh. form is isolated within WC.
Outside NC the same word is attested in Megr. (beha, see above) and Arm. bah. The Armenian word has no reliable IE etymology (its deduction from IE *bhr_ti- 'edge' is both phonetically and semantically quite dubious, see Walde-Pokorny 2, 159) and most probably has a Caucasian source.
COMMENT: The Nakh form belongs here rather probably, but has some irregularities: initial š- (*c- or *č- would be rather expected) and the cluster -ṭq̇- (the latter can represent old suffixation, as in some other cases: *šVrṭq̇V < *šVrq̇-TV). Forms of other languages correlate with each other very well, and the root is well reconstructable for PNC.
The Av.-And. and WC forms were compared by Klimov (1968, 229), who also adduced the Kartvelian material: Georg. ciq̇wi 'squirrel' (which must be a loan from some EC source). The Georgian word was, in its turn, borrowed in Bezht. (Khosh.) ciq̇i, (Tlad.) č̣eq̇i 'squirrel'.
COMMENT: The root is not very widely spread, but seems reliable both phonetically and semantically. In PL there occurred a usual assimilation (*č:at: < *čat:). For PNC we could also reconstruct *č- - if we would suppose that this assimilation occurred already in PEC (*čä̆dV > *ǯä̆dV): since the PTs form is reconstructed only on Gunz. and Bezht. evidence, it could contain either *š:- ( < PEC *ć-) or *ž- ( < PEC *ǯ-).
COMMENT: The initial cluster *cH may explain some irregularities in reflexation (the most severe ones - not explainable by interlingual borrowings - are strengthening *s- > *s:- in PL and voicing in PWC). It is possible that the monosyllabic structure *cHǝ̆ itself is a contraction < *cǝħV or *ħǝcV - in which case the PTs form should be considered as the most archaic one. Cf. also š(V)- in Urart. š(V)-usǝ 'first', as well as HU *suj- > Hurr. šui(-ne), Urart. šuinǝ 'all, every' (cf. a similar semantic development in several EC languages), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 38.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Medial -l- (based on the Lak. form) is not secure; Archi and PN speak rather in favour of *-j- (*cHōjGV), and Lak. -l- in this case may be a metathesis of a determinative suffix (cuIlq:a- < *cuIq:V-la-).
COMMENT: Correspondences between EC and WC are regular except for unpredicted palatalisation in PWC (*šʷV would be expected). This may be explained either by vocalic metathesis (*chwōlĕ / *chwēlŏ) or, perhaps, by the original trisyllabic root structure (*chwōlĕ < earlier *cEhwōlĕ, cf. the probably connected - as a loan or as a common heritage from an earlier source - Semitic form *čuʕāl 'fox').
PN, Lak and part of the Lezgian languages reflect an old diminutive derivate *chwōlV-ḳV (in PN and some Lezgian languages with metathesis *chwōḳVlV).
COMMENT: An expressive, but undoubtedly common NC root. Its irregularity is tenseness of the first consonant and laxness of the second (we should expect reflexes of a tense *f: in PL as *ʎ:ʷ).
COMMENT: One of the most reliable comparisons put forward by Trubetzkoy (1930,277); see also Abdokov 1983, 85. Despite some authors (Dzhavakhishvili 1937,419, Bghazhba 1948,42, Klimov 1963,223) this root has nothing to do with the PNC numeral "one" q.v.
The only apparent irregularity is the strength of *c: in PWC, while the PEC root vowel is short. This is probably due to the early vowel contraction after the (regular) loss of resonant+laryngeal in PWC.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Not widely attested (therefore the vocalic reconstruction is not secure), but obviously archaic: cf. Hurr. i-cχarǝ 'kitchen' (*'subsidiary building'), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 39.
COMMENT: The Ub.-EC correspondence is quite probable (although the vocalism is not quite clear). Av.-And.-Tsezian languages reflect a metathesized variant *nVćV.
A suffixed form of the same root can be reconstructed for PNC as *ćVnV-ḳwV 'a k. of sickle, scythe'. It is reflected in PEC as *č̣inVḳwV (with assimilation), and in PWC as *čʷVmVgV. Cf. for PEC: Av. Chad. č̣iníḳ, And. (Khaidakov) č̣iniḳ, Bezht. Tlad. č̣iniḳ, Khosh. c̣iniḳ, Gunz. č̣iniḳ (PTs *č̣iniḳ), Lak. č̣iniḳ, Darg. Chir. č̣inaḳ 'scythe', PL *č̣inaḳʷ (Ag. č̣ineḳʷ, Lezg. Khl. č̣anag 'sickle', Rut. č̣inaḳʷ, Tsakh. č̣inaḳ, Arch. č̣iniḳʷ 'scythe'). Some of these forms may be borrowed from neighbour languages, but at least the PL form and either Av. or Lak. are probably genuine and go back to PEC. For PWC cf.: PAT *čǝbǝgV (Abkh. a-čbǝ́ga, Abaz. čbǝg), PAK *č́amáǵǝ (Ad. š́amaǯ́, Kab. šamaǯ), Ub. č́amáǵ. The Ub. form is probably borrowed from Ad., but the PAT and PAK forms are genuine cognates.
Osset. cäväg 'scythe' is explained by Abayev (1, 306) as a derivate from cävyn 'to beat' (which itself is etymologically obscure, see ibid.); therefore he regards the WC forms as borrowed from Ossetian, and this hypothesis is accepted by Shagirov 2, 137. However, the Ossetian source can not explain many phonetic features of its Caucasian counterparts (in particular, nasalisation present in most NC forms). It seems to us much more reasonable to suppose that the Ossetian form itself was borrowed from a Caucasian source (cf., e.g., PAT *čǝbǝgV with secondary denasalisation). Later it was, in its turn, borrowed in some EC languages: cf. Cham. čag (Gig. čagi), God. čogi 'scythe' - forms that are absolutely irregular compared to other EC forms, and can be easily derived from a source like Proto-Ossetian *čavag. See Starostin 1985, 81.
COMMENT: One of the long established common NC roots. The PWC form is metathesized (*mǝš́ʷV < *š́ʷVmV), otherwise corresponding quite well to EC reflexes. The Lak. and Darg. forms reflect a rather unique suffixed variant *cwä̆m-ƛV (such a lateral suffix is unknown elsewhere), and thus raise some doubts; but it is hard to separate these forms from all the rest.
See Bork 1907, 26-27, 30, Trombetti 1923, 364, Рогава 1956, 28, Шагиров 1977, 273, Abdokov 1983, 119-120. All the authors link the EC and NC forms also with PK *da(ś)tw- 'bear' which is hard to justify phonetically, as well as the attempts to make an inner morphological analysis of the PWC form (made in Рогава 1956, 28, 36, Ломтатидзе 1961, 118).
COMMENT: One of very widely spread common NC roots. Correspondences are quite regular (Nakh *p- reflects labialisation, while *sṭ is a result of the following -j-). There may have existed an early variant *ćĭwo (or *ćĭwjo) which would account for Nakh forms without *p- (*sṭ-aḳ) and the PWC absence of labialisation.
A possible HU parallel is *-s(u)wa in Hurr. tar-ž(u)wa-nnǝ, Urart. tar-šua-nǝ 'man, human being' (where *tar- is probably connected with *tur- 'male', see *lɨwŁV); see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 39.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PTs form should have been *zis:V (*žis:V), but there occurred an assimilation (obligatory in this structure).
COMMENT: An And-Lezg. isogloss. As usual, in a root with two stops there occurred assimilations: in PA *ć_akwV- > *č:akʷV- > *č:ak:ʷV-; in PL *ć_akwV- > *č_akʷV- > *č:ak:ʷV-.
