COMMENT: A good common NC root. In PWC labialisation was lost, as often, after the preceding labial (which, in this case, is a prefix). Not quite clear, however, is the absence of palatalisation in PWC (expected before an original front vowel); perhaps, we deal with a case of old vowel alternation.
COMMENT: The common NC exclusive 1st person plural pronoun. Some languages have preserved traces of alternating stems *ži(-n) (dir.), *ža- (obl.), *ʔižV (gen.). [There may have also existed an ergative form *ʔež-, but since the Nakh languages, usually preserving the archaic ergative pronominal stems, have lost this pronoun, it can not be reconstructed.]
In some languages (Lak., Ub., some Lezg. languages and Darg. dialects) this has become the only form of the 1st person plural pronoun (having superseded the old inclusive forms); in other languages (Nakh, Tsezian) the process was reversed and original exclusive forms were superseded by inclusive ones.
See Trubetzkoy 1930, 273. Abdokov (1983, 137) strangely enough compares the Ubykh form š́ǝ- with the PEC inclusive *Lǟ, which is quite impossible for phonetic reasons.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. There are certain phonetic irregularities (assimilation *ǯ- > *č̣- in PA and PC, with following dissimilation *č̣eq̇ > č̣eq in Gunz., absence of velarisation *q̇ʷ > ḳ in PA) which must be explained by the expressive nature of the root.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for a somewhat irregular behaviour of the medial resonant (we should expect its preservation in Lezg.), correspondences are normal. At least the PN-PD comparison is quite valid; the Lezg. form, since it is quite isolatedin Lezgian, may be an old loan from Darg.
COMMENT: The PN form has been transformed under influence of *stim 'gall' q.v. Otherwise the correspondences are regular.
For phonetic reasons, as well as because of another quite satisfactory etymology, one must give up the comparison of PWC *žǝ with Av. c:in, PN *stim etc. 'gall', proposed by Trubetzkoy (1930, 278; see also Шагиров 1, 205).
COMMENT: An expressive root; the PEC antiquity is somewhat dubious, because in fact we deal with a Nakh-Lak. isogloss (the Av.-And. forms may be borrowed from Nakh, see above).
COMMENT: A Chech.-Lak. isogloss; a reduplicated nursery word, thus the PEC antiquity is quite dubious. Cf. also Osset. ʒīʒa 'meat' (see Abayev 1958, 397) < Cauc.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Several subgroups reflect a PEC derivate *ǯɦŭmV-ɫV (sometimes, with metathesis > *ǯɦŭɫVmV). Because of a specific and identical metathesis of nasality, it is highly probable that either the Darg. forms are borrowed from Lak., or vice versa - although it is difficult now to establish the direction of loan. The form *ǯɦŭɫVmV (or *ǯɦŭɫVm-bV, with a plural suffix) is attested already in Hurr. zilumba 'date of the Phoenix dactylifera' (whence it was borrowed into Sum. zulum(m)a, Akkad. suluppu, see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 41).
Despite Khaidakov 1973, Kum. čum 'berry, cornel' can not be the source of Caucasian forms (although it is a probable source of the isolated And. (cited from ibid.) čum 'cornel'). Within Turkic the root is known only in modern Kumyk, Balkar and Turkmani, thus with high probability is itself borrowed from some Caucasian (or closely related) language. Caucasian origin is also quite probable for Osset. cɨm / cumä 'cornel' (see Abayev 1958, 321).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive reduplicated root, but with quite satisfactory correspondences. Cf. a similar root in Kartvelian: *ǯinč̣wel- 'ant'.
COMMENT: The PN, Tsez. and Lezg. words are no doubt connected, but the PEC antiquity of the root is dubious: Tsez. could have borrowed it from Nakh, Lezg. - from some other source (PL reconstruction is dubious because the word is attested only in Lezg. proper, and because PL *ž- is a rather rare reflex of *ǯ-; if the word were genuine, we would rather expect PL *č:- > Lezg. č:-). Therefore the PEC reconstruction is very tentative in this case.
COMMENT: A common NC monosyllabic adverb (frequently used in compounds, but also attested independently). Correspondences are regular. See Абдоков 1983, 185.
COMMENT: An expressive root with two stops; in such cases metatheses and assimilations are common in NC languages (although this makes the reconstruction less secure). Cf. also Hurr. zugǝ 'small, short' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 41).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Some irregularities (weakening or deglottalisation of the first consonant) are conditioned by the root's structure (two stops) and expressive semantics.
