COMMENT: Although the superficial resemblance is great, the PEC reconstruction for this root is rather difficult. Aside from the problems in PL reconstruction (see above), the correspondence would be normal if there were no labialised reflexes in Av. and PL (on the other hand, for PEC *ś_wVrV- we would expect š:- in Av., š(ʷ)- in Lak., *s:- in PD and *šʷ- in PL). The only possible solution is to reconstruct a verbal stem with a cluster *-wś-, yielding independently labialised fricatives in daughter-languages.
Another possible solution would be to separate the PL form, which may be autonomously compared with PAK *za "turn round" (Ad. ʁa-za-n, Kab. ʁa-za-n etc.), see Абдоков 1983, 175.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root has no class prefixes in PN, and their traces in PTs are probably secondary (initial *ʔw reinterpreted as the animated class marker). Medial *-χ- in PTs is not quite regular (we would rather expect -χ:- or -ʁ:-): this is possibly due to contamination with another EC root, *ʡĭnGwV̆ 'heel, back' (q.v.).
The root is sometimes hard to distinguish from *-ǝ̆χA 'below' (q.v.), but they are opposed at least in PN and PA and should be kept separate.
COMMENT: Cf. also Hurr. ašχi 'skin' (regularly < *arci, see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 47). An interesting common NC root. The original meaning is obviously "skin" > "surface, exterior, color" > (change of color = ) "anger, anxiety". The whole spectre of meanings is present both in EC and in WC languages.
See Abdokov 1983, 76 (Shakhdagh-WC; all other EC forms cited by the author do not belong here).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The phonetic match between the PL form, on one side, and the PN and Av., on the other, is perfect. As for the semantic side, we must postulate the original meaning "movement of air" ( > a) "sound"; b) "wind" > "cold, rheumatism"; both changes are rather frequent typologically).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PL form is reduplicated (with the reduplication well preserved in Ag.). PN has a regular -r- before the diminutive *-iḳ; -r in Bacb. ʕür is probably an analogical back-formation (or a result of merger with PN *ōr 'pit', see below). The Avar word may be alternatively compared with PN *ōr 'pit' (Chech. or, obl. ōra-, Ing. or); a borrowing Nakh < Avar is also not excluded. However, Abayev (1989, 95) is certainly wrong in supposing that Chech., Av. or is borrowed from Osset. wärm 'pit, cellar' (a word of Iranian origin, borrowed in Georg. ormo).
COMMENT: A very complicated case. All languages of Daghestan explicitly reflect the labialised *cw (correspondence Av. c : PA *s : Lak c(ʷ) : PD *s: : PL *-s). The Nakh and PWC forms, however, reflect a simple *c (otherwise PN would have *č, and PWC - *šʷ). The reason is obviously a secondary labialisation in EC, due to the labialising influence of *ʔw (labialisation is also indirectly reflected in PD -m-, assimilated from -n-). The root must have contained both a nasal (cf. forms like PN *nace, Lak. nuwca, PD *ʕems:, Arch. winisi) and a liquid resonant (cf. PA *risV and most Lezghian forms). However, a disyllabic protoform *ʔwnĭrcĔ or *ʔwrĭncĔ would give quite different reflexes in most languages (see phonetic tables). We must, therefore, suppose a protoform like *ʔwinĭrcĔ to account for all the complexity of development. The trisyllabic Archi form winisi thus appears to be an archaism, directly reflecting the PNC root structure.
The root as such is not reflected in PTs (we should expect something like *rizV or *rɨzV). There exists, however, a PC root *rɨcV(nV) (Tsez. recenjo, Gin. recen 'ant', Bezht. rica, Gunz. rɨcǝ 'tick'). It can be an indirect reflex of the same EC root, modified under the influence of other insect names like PTs *nɔcǝ 'louse' or *hũcV 'ant'.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The medial resonant must be reconstructed because of the PTs reflex *-χ:- (otherwise *-χ- or *-ʁ:- would be expected); other languages do not contradict it.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. We must note that the morphemes *ʔwɨ- and *c_wi, both meaning 'in front', are in complementary distribution in EC: the former is reflected in PN, PTs and PL, and the latter - in PA and PD.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Proto-Av.-And. form reflects an early nasalisation: *mingʷa < *bingʷa < *bilgʷa (where b- is a regular reflex of the PEC labialised *ʔw-).
COMMENT: The PC and Agul forms are no doubt related. We should note, however, that PTs *ʕɔ̃ƛ̣ means both 'spindle' and 'handle', the latter certainly going back to PEC *ʕülƛ̣_wɨ̆ 'handle' (q.v.). If we assume that the Agul form also goes back to *ʕülƛ̣_wɨ̆ (with an irregular development of *ƛ̣w in a tense word - -k:- would be regularly expected), the reconstruction *ʕănƛ̣V should be abandoned.
