COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The verb has class prefixes only in Lak. and Darg. Several languages have an interesting opposition 'to eat (objectless)' : 'to eat (smth.)': Av. Chad. kuná-ji : kʷén-ži; Darg. Chir. =erkʷVn- / =uk- : =uk- / =uk-; Arch. kúm-mus (dur. kúkin, term. kúnni) : kum-mús (dur. kʷan, term. kunné).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PL form contains a former class prefix *u_-; other subgroups have either lost it or reflect a prefixless form. The vocalic correspondences are irregular just as they are in *u_ĕnc̣ɨ 'ten' (q.v.). This is due to the mutual influence of these numerals in most subgroups: nevertheless, Laki, Avar and Dargwa reflect the opposition (*-i- in 'nine', *-e- in 'ten') very well.
One is tempted to compare the EC forms with PAT *zʷǝ 'nine' (as it was done by Trubetzkoy 1930, 275, Абоков 1983, 156). PAT *zʷǝ, however, corresponds well to Ub. bʁ́ǝ and PAK *bʁʷǝ 'nine', allowing to reconstruct PWC *bɣ́ʷǝ q.v. - and the comparison of *ʔĭlć̣wɨ and *bɣ́ʷǝ meets serious phonetic obstacles.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Although not very widely spread (attested only in four languages), the root is no doubt archaic. Medial -l- is reconstructed on basis of PC nasalisation, and is well confirmed by the HU parallel: Hurr. ilʒ-iri 'boundary mark of the universe (provided with a watch-tower)', see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 42).
COMMENT: A Lezg.-Khin. isogloss. There are no traces of this archaic root in other EC languages, but there is a good HU parallel: Hurr. mann-, Ur. man- 'to be' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 21).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Cf. also Hurr. u/oll- 'to perish' (caus. 'to destroy'), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 51. The root may be ultimately related to *=ĭwƛ̣Ĕ 'to kill' (q.v.).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Reasons for the -n-conjugation in Av.-And. are not clear (as in a number of other cases); other languages do not have any traces of nasalisation. The root must originally have been prefixless: cf. the Av. form, and the identity of derivates PL *ʔi(r)χʷVra = PN *ʔurχal ( < PEC *ʔirχʷVrV / *ʔirχʷVlV). Therefore class prefixation in most modern languages (as well as prefixation in PD derivates *b-irχVla / *b-arχVrV and *d-irχVla) should be regarded as secondary.
The Khin. form miχez is interesting: it may reflect an archaic derivative pattern with the instrumental prefix *m- (< *m-irχʷVrV 'the instrument of sewing'); no other explanation of m- seems to be available in this case.
COMMENT: An expressive root with many irregular changes. Nevertheless, at least two common EC derivates can be reconstructed: a) *ʔVrχ_wVrV (with reduction *χ:ʷVrV) > Gunz. hǝru, Lak. χ:ara-, PL *ʔarχ:(ʷ)Vra; b) *χirχ_wV (coinciding with the reduplicated verbal stem).
A similar stem exists in Kartvelian: *χarχ- 'to saw, saw' (see Klimov 1964, 257-258). From Kartvelian (Georg. χerχ- 'saw', Megr. χorχ- id.) it was borrowed into many NC languages: Chech., Ing., Bacb. χerχ, Inkh. χereχ, Tsez., Gin. χiriχ, Bezht. Tlad. χorʁo, Khosh. χorχo, Abkh. a-χʷarχ́ (Bzyb. a-χ́arχ́).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is prefixless in PN (traces of it are also seen in Andian languages), so probably the prefixed variant (with b-) in Av., Akhv. and Lak. is secondary.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The meanings 'to win' and 'to lose, be defeated' ( = 'to be won') interchange very frequently in EC languages, thus the PN form can be safely compared with PA and PC.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is rather widely attested and has several nominal derivates in several subgroups; one of them, *ʒ_urV-lV 'filter, sieve' (PL *c̣:urVl(a), PD *zurla > *zula, Av. c̣:urá) can be also reconstructed for PEC.
COMMENT: The comparison seems rather probable. We should note, however, that the PWC form can equally well correspond to PEC *ħwäls_ǝ̆ 'wood, stick' (q.v.), with which we compared PWC *pǝsV 'fir-tree' (in fact, such a comparison was made by Abdokov 1983, 132) - and vice versa. This is conditioned by the merger of *c and *s in PWC, as well as the loss of resonants and laryngeals. Therefore, the final etymological solution is yet to be done.
COMMENT: The PTs form is a contraction of the deictic particle *ho- (q.v.) + the expected reflex *lɨL > *rɨL (*ho-lɨL > *hulL > *hũL). In PWC the specific cluster *ʔl- developped into *ƛ, with a regular strengthening before a long vowel; the resulting *ƛ:VʎV (where -ʎ- regularly < *-ƛ-) developed into *ƛ:Vʎ:V through assimilation. Although superficially the EC and WC forms are very different, they are no doubt genetically related.
Trubetzkoy (1922, 239) incorrectly compares the PA root with Lezg. jif (which in reality goes back to PEC *ɦnić_wV q.v.).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is reflected only in four languages, thus the precise vocalic reconstruction is difficult; still its PEC antiquity is quite probable (no possible source of borrowing is known to us).
COMMENT: This demonstrative stem is mostly used for far deixis ("that") as opposed to *ha- (q.v.) for near deixis or emphatic deixis. We must note, however, that in many modern languages it is extremely complicated to make a clear-cut distinction between the reflexes of these two pronominal morphemes.
COMMENT: A nursery word; however, its common NC ancestry can not be doubted. The palatalisation in PWC *ṕ: can be explained by the influence of *-j. See Abdokov 1983, 86 (although the PAK form (in view of its AT correlates) should be kept apart from PEC *dādājV 'father' (q.v.).
In Lak. there occurred a reduction of the first vowel (cf. an analogous feature in Kryz.). Khin. has also a form bɨj 'father', but this is most likely an old Shakh-Dagh loanword.
