COMMENT: One of the most widely spread common NC roots. It is adjectival, but usually does not have class prefixes (the situation in some Tsez. languages must therefore be considered as a secondary innovation). In Khin. the root is preserved within the compound c̣ɨ-nas 'bride' (see *nŭsA).
Cf. Urart. š(V)-uɣǝ 'new' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 34-35).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Medial -r- in Av.-And. is not quite clear (we would rather expect here a loss of medial resonant); also rather strange is the paradigm A in Avar (Nakh languages do not show any trace of laryngeals). These irregularities can be perhaps explained by interlingual borrowing - but in general the antiquity of the root is beyond doubt.
COMMENT: Initial *ʔur- in PD is a frequent prefix (a former class exponent?). Despite some phonetic difficulties (loss of glottalisation in PD which we still can not explain), the comparison seems plausible.
COMMENT: The cognateship of the EC and WC forms seems quite probable, although in PWC we must assume a secondary voicing (-χ- > -ʁ-). The PN form is metathesized: *χāṭṭ- < *χānc̣- < *c̣ānχ- (probably with a secondary length, because other languages suggest rather a short vowel). All these irregularities are explained by the exceptional root structure *CVRCV, very rare for verbs.
COMMENT: Although the root is expressive and, therefore, behaves not quite regularly (the PWC form presupposes rather a NC protoform like *cĒrc̣V), there is no doubt in the historical identity of the EC and WC forms.
COMMENT: Except for metatheses in PTs and (occasionally) in PL, correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems reliable. Abdokov (1983, 133) compares the WC forms with another EC root (see *c̣wɨ̄ɫɦV 'stick'), which seems less convincing both for phonetic and semantic reasons.
COMMENT: Despite some phonetic difficulties (due to assimilations and contaminations, see above), the EC-WC comparison looks satisfactory. As seen from the variety of meanings, the common NC semantics may be assumed to have been "waste (of grain, fruit)".
COMMENT: This EC root is not attested separately, but only in compounds *c̣ĭlV-c̣ɦwĕme (q.v.) or *ʡwĭlʡi-c̣ɦwĕme ("eyelash-eyebrow" or "eye-eyebrow"). Interlingual borrowings: Arch. darc̣an < Lak. it:a-c̣ani.
COMMENT: The root occurs only within an old compound *c̣ĭlV-*c̣ɦwĕme which has been best preserved in Tab. and PN. The Darg. form is quite irregular (probably because of the expressive and reduplicated nature of the stem). PTs *c̣ɨc̣ is probably an analogous simplification of *c̣ɨ(l)-c̣Vm - cf. the obl. base Tsez. c̣ec̣mo- which better preserves the old structure.
COMMENT: With the exception of metathesis in PWC (a rather frequent phenomenon in roots with two stops), correspondences are regular and the etymology seems generally reliable. The Lak. form probably was borrowed in Avar: Av. c̣:aχá (not genuinely related because of the irregular c̣:-), which, in its turn, was borrowed by Archi (c̣aχa id.). It is, however, not clear whether we should relate here also the phonetically aberrant Darg. forms: Ak. carka 'floor-cloth'; Ak., Ur. č̣uqan 'floor-mat'.
The word has possible parallels in Iranian: Osset. sarɣ, Afg. sarɣ, Sogd. s'ɣr 'saddle' ( > Arab. sarǯ > Pers. sarǯ), Pam. sirekh,siregh 'woollen blanket, mattress', see Abayev 1979, 34-35.
COMMENT: Despite some metatheses (possibly variants *c̣īwV / *c̣ūjV can be reconstructed), the WC-EC comparison seems quite likely for both phonetic and semantic reasons. See Dumézil 1933, 50, Abdokov 1983, 133.
