COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The stem originally formed part of the suppletive paradigm of the 2d person pronoun. We can securely reconstruct the oblique stem *ʔŏʁwV, reflected in PN erg. *ʔaħ, Tsakh. gen. j-ɨʁ- and Khin. dat. oχ. It was probably used in the ergative case (the shift to genitive in Tsakhur must be secondary, because the original 2d person genitive is more or less securely reconstructed as *ʔeu_V- or *ʔiu_V, see under *u_ō). As for the stem *ʁwV̄- itself, it was either used as ergative or (interchanging with *uō) also as nominative.
The complete paradigm of the second person pronoun in PEC can thus be reconstructed as *u_ō (nom., perhaps interchanging with *ʁwV̄), *ʔŏʁwV (erg.), *ʔeu_V-/*ʔiu_V- (gen.), *du- (dat.). There is, however, no guarantee that this situation reflects the common NC state of things, because Western Caucasian languages do not reveal any traces of the stems *ʁwV̄ and *du- (reflecting only *u_ō).
COMMENT: The PL form is probably an assimilated compound of *kʷil 'hand' + *-ak:ʷV- 'small, bad' (cf. an analogous compound in Laki).
[There seems to exist a different EC root, which may be tentatively reconstructed as *k_HwaGV with the same semantic scope: cf. PTs *gʷVqV- / *qʷVqV- > Gin. gaqi 'bad', Gunz. qoq-dās 'left', Arch. qIok:u,qIok-du- id., perhaps also Lak. kuja ( < *kuq̇Ia) id., which could be early borrowed in Av. kʷeʕa- 'left'. The relationship of *k_HwaGV to *HāgwV is not quite clear. It may well be that we deal with one and the same root or its compound with *kwi(l)- 'hand', subject to various irregular changes because of dissimilations and taboos.]
COMMENT: Cf. (with an a-prothesis and *ɫ > r) Hurr. aɣri 'incense' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 55).
The EC-WC comparison seems rather probable, despite the not quite regular correspondence PEC *ɫ : PWC *Ł. Resonants are normally lost in PWC, but in this case *ɫ was retained as the only possible element (because laryngeals were also lost, and probably even before the resonants), but was transformed into a voiced lateral affricate.
COMMENT: The root is probably also reflected in Nakh (cf. Chech. =eq̇a 'hard, rigid'), but here it has completely merged (for phonetic reasons) with PNC *=ĭG_wĂr 'dry, to dry' (q.v.).
As with many adjectival stems, the root is frequently reduplicated. EC and WC languages reflect both the simple and the reduplicated stem. In some subgroups (particularly, in Lezghian) the root was subject to complicated expressive transformations, but still the semantic and phonetic unity of the listed forms is beyond doubt.
COMMENT: PTs has not preserved the original verb, but only the derivate (with a widely spread semantic shift 'break, cut' > 'wound'); note the prefix coincidence in PTs and Laki. The EC-WC comparison see in Абдоков 1983, 162.
Cf. also Urart. iwχ- (spelled iBχ-) 'to destroy', see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 60.
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular, and the PNC reconstruction seems reliable (although in PN and PTs there could have occurred a partial contamination with another PEC root, *=Vwq_V q.v.).
COMMENT: Semantically and phonetically the comparison is fine, but since the root is reflected only in three languages the reconstruction is dubious. The initial lateral in the PA (Akhv.) form - if it belongs here - must be a remnant of the root for "eye" (PEC *ʡwilʡi q.v.) - cf. the same element in PA *ƛ̣-ins:Vr 'eyebrow' (see under *mĕrs_A). The medial resonant *-r- must be reconstructed because of preservation of *q̇ʷ in PA; unfortunately, in all of the three languages present (Akhv., Bezht. and Tsakh.) medial -r- disappears in such clusters.
COMMENT: The root is onomatopoeic, but correspondences are regular (except for resonant metathesis in PL: *raχa- < *Harχa-; the original sequence is probably preserved in Tsakh.), and its PNC antiquity seems rather probable.
COMMENT: Originally it was probably a name of some coniferous tree, cf. also Hurr. ažu(-ɣǝ) 'fir-tree' ( > Akkad. ašūχu, see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 41); the meaning 'birch-tree' in some And. languagesis secondary. The medial resonant is not reflected directly, but it must be postulated to explain spirantisation in PTs.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The verb has a very rare root structure (*HVRVCV), clearly seen in the reflexes; the second consonant is in most subgroups a reflex of *-w-, but Lak. has -r- and Andian has changing class infixes (-b-/-r-). Since such a root structure is quite unique for a verb, there are two equally acceptable solutions: to reconstruct *-w- (and consider Lak. -r- and And. -b-/-r- an innovation) or to reconstruct changing class infixes in PEC.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Since normally clusters of two Inlaut stops are prohibited, this word is most probably a compound with an expressive first component (*Hăχ-); the second component must be = PEC *tujV 'spittle' q.v.
