COMMENT: Reconstructed for PEC. The vocalic reconstruction is not quite certain (primarily because within Lezghian we have only the Ud. reflex); otherwise the correspondences are regular.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is mostly spread in the Eastern area. In some of the Darg. dialects and in Khin. there occurred an assimilation č > č: after q:.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Cf. also the reduplicated synonymous form *gălVgV q.v.: we keep the stems distinct, because they have separate reflexes in some subgroups, but *gălVgV most certainly is a reduplication of *gălV.
COMMENT: A Lak.-Lezg. isogloss. The Lak. word (with assimilation: χ:anχ:a < *q:anχ:a) was borrowed in Darg. χamχa (Chir. χ:amχ:a) 'carcass'. Arch. χ:amχ:i 'carcass (of a ram)' is borrowed either from Lak. or from Darg.
COMMENT: Lak. k:aši may be borrowed from Darg. (or vice versa), but may be also genuine. PWC has, as in some other cases, an affricate corresponding to a PEC fricative: this must be explained by a historical dental prefix (*č́ǝga < *T-š́ǝga).
An interesting common NC root, attested also in other geographically close families (cf. Sum. šàgar 'hunger' [cf. especially the PWC form], Hitt. kast, Afroasiatic: Sem. *gŝʕ, Cush. *gaʔaĉ-).
COMMENT: A Lezg.-Khin. isogloss. It is interesting to mention Tind. q:awu 'garret': it is quite isolated within Andian, and can not correspond phonetically to PL *q:aw (Tind. ʁabV would be expected) - perhaps it should be regarded as a loan from some Lezghian language (although we do not know of any other cases of early Lezghian loanwords in Andian languages).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. A cultural word with a simple phonetic structure, thus easily borrowed from one language into another. However, no external source for this word is known, and its EC origin is quite probable.
COMMENT: A Darg-Lezg. isogloss. The word is attested also in Lak (Bartkh. čač:in 'a vessel holding 4 litres of liquid', see Хайдаков 1975, 247), where it is irregular and most probably borrowed from Lezghian.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive root; besides rather usual for this structure assimilations (*g- > *ḳ-) there's an irregular vowel in PD (-i- instead of *-a-) and an irregular consonant in PTs (-c- instead of *-č̣-).
COMMENT: The comparison belongs to Abdokov 1983, 74. The Nakh form may belong here if it is a partial reduplication (*gagV < *gargV or *galgV). Note that Kryz. gäli 'throat' (also cited by Abdokov ibid.) is a recent Persian loanword and does not belong here.
COMMENT: An expressive root, however, surprisingly similar in distant subgroups and thus probably archaic. Most EC languages reflect a variant with an expressive suffix *-dV (*gäldV).
Some other forms with an expressive shift *g > *ʁ can also be related: cf. Ing. ʁadaʁilg(aš), Tab. ʁIudʁIli, Lak. ʁIidi. Unfortunately the root is recorded only in few EC languages.
COMMENT: Phonetic analysis of the reflexes shows that both EC and WC languages reflect two initial variants (with voiceless *-t- and with glottalized *-ṭ-), and it is hard to decide which is the original one. All other correspondences are surprisingly regular (if we separate all the secondary interlingual borrowings).
The etymon is, of course a Wanderwort (cf. Kartv. *ḳaṭu, late Latin cattus, Slav. *kotъ, Osset. gädɨ, see Abayev 1958, 510, etc.). Klimov (1967, 380-381) tried to explain its presence in the Caucasian languages as a loan from Armenian; but the word no doubt existed already at least in PWC and in sub-protolanguages like PL and PA which makes this theory impossible.
Even if the word is borrowed from some external source, the borrowing occurred so early that we think it justified to include the word into the common NC wordstock.
