COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive stem with some irregular changes - possibly an old compound (for the first part cf., e.g., PEC *č̣āmʁā 'jackdaw', which could be distorted in a long word in most languages).
COMMENT: A Nakh-And. isogloss, thus the vocalic reconstruction and reconstruction of the medial resonant are uncertain; nevertheless, the comparison seems plausible.
COMMENT: In EC all forms point to a reconstruction *č̣ʷimħV. The original meaning of this root was probably "span between the thumb and the small finger" (cf. in Cham. the opposition jeƛ̣:im < *HrVŁ_V̆ : č̣ibil < *č̣ʷimħV). Outside the Andian area, however, most languages had lost the root *HrVŁ_V̆ and *č̣ʷimħV obtained first the meaning 'span (in general)', and sometimes (after the penetration of new words - for the most part borrowed, like Turk. čejrek < Pers. čahār-yak - with the meaning 'span between the thumb and the small finger') - the meaning 'span between the thumb and the fore-finger'.
The comparison of PEC *č̣wimħV and PWC *ǯa is tempting, although it presents some phonetic problems. Labialisation in PEC can be secondary (due to assimilation < *č̣imħV); loss of the cluster *-mħ- in PWC is also regular. However, lack of palatalisation in PWC can not be explained - we would regularly expect a form like *č̣́a or *ǯ́a. Perhaps this is a case of a very archaic Ablaut, involving alternation of a front and a back vowel.
COMMENT: A common NC adjectival and nominal stem. It is not quite clear whether r- in PL *ruč̣(a) ( = Gunz. rɔč̣u) should be treated as a former class prefix or as part of the root. The latter hypothesis seems preferable, because in Nakh languages the word has no class prefixes. See Abdokov 1983, 104 (Tsez. : WC).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. In PTs the labialisation had passed to the Inlaut resonant (a rather frequent development). The Avaro-Andian forms contain a dental suffix. Therefore it is most probable that Lak. č̣iṭ, Darg. (Ak.) č̣iṭ 'bug' are borrowed from Avar (they correspond badly to other EC forms, but are well explained if we assume a loan).
There exists, however, another parallel in the Lak.-Darg. area: cf. Darg. Chir. čaṭ 'grass-hopper', Lak. č̣aṭi 'larva'. It is not excluded that these forms reflect the same suffixed form as Av. č̣eṭ, i.e. PEC *č̣wɨ̆n-ṭV (*č̣ɨ̆m-ṭV).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (except for the Auslaut: Lak. and Av. suggest PEC *-ū, which does not correspond to PL *-a). A possible derivate from this root is Hurr. zūl-ud- 'to release, unbind' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 44).
[One must also consider the possibility of relating here Darg. Ak. č̣i 'thread' - if it originally meant 'leather thread or strip'. In this case, however, we would have to change the cluster -ɫɦ- to -lh- to account for the loss of resonant in Darg. Lak. č̣ulū would then have to be analyzed as a suffixed form (otherwise the regular reflex would be č̣u, also with loss of -l) - which is not improbable, in view of the mentioned above discrepancy between the Lak. and PL Auslauts).]
COMMENT: A Lezg.-WC isogloss. The comparison is quite satisfactory both phonetically and semantically. Cf., perhaps, also Akhv. čaḳ:i 'urine' - although this would raise some semantic and phonetic problems.
COMMENT: The Av. word reflects a suffix *-di (*č̣_wɦĕldi), common for many plant-names. One feels tempted to compare PWC > PAK *(p)c:aLǝ 'willow' (Ad. pceLǝ, Kab. ʒaL), but there are significant phonetic obstacles (PAK *c: can go back to PWC *č:, but we would rather expect *č̣́ʷ- in Anlaut). Thus the root so far remains an Av.-Lezg. isogloss.
COMMENT: A Lezg.-Darg. isogloss. The root is expressive and reduplicated, hence the PEC antiquity is dubious. There exists a Kartvelian parallel (PK *deda-l- 'hen, female', see Klimov 72).
