COMMENT: The WC reflexes probably were influenced by another root, represented by Ad. baǯ́ǝn, Kab. baǯǝna (PAK *bagǝ́na) "a meal from barley (oats, maize) flour and sour cream" - which itself is an obvious iranism (see Abayev 1958, 245 under Osset. bägänǝ 'beer'). However, the root *bagǝna "oats" is undoubtedly genuine (it is hard to suppose a semantic shift "beer" > "oats").
If we consider *-na in the WC form a later addition, under the influence of the mentioned root *bagǝna "beverage, beer", the PWC *bagǝ ( ~ -ǵ-) will be a regular reflex of PNC *ɦwVgǝbV̆ ~ * ɦwVbǝgV̆.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The original trisyllabic structure is well preserved in Lak.; other languages treat it like a disyllabic structure *ɦwlăq_ē.
Note that PD *hanq:i 'hearth', however similar, is not related and goes back to PEC *ɦnărG_wī 'house' (q.v.): perhaps we should rather speak of a merger of these two roots in Darg., because of their phonetic and semantic similarity.
COMMENT: The adjectival root itself is reconstructed only for the PEC level; there are, however, two common NC nominal stems meaning "worm" and probably derived from the same root (the meanings "worm" and "red" are closely related, cf. Indo-European): PNC *bēmṭV and *ɦwe(m)ṭi q.v. (the first probably contains the class prefix *b-, cf. the adjectival form *p:-a(m)ṭar- in PL).
COMMENT: A Tsez-Lezg. isogloss. Correspondences are quite regular, except that we should rather expect a loss of medial resonant in PL; there must have occurred an early dissimilation *jălƛwV > *jărƛwV.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Some features (reduction of the initial syllable in PA, Lak. b- /bajlaχ:i < *bV-jalχV/) suggest that the stem may be deverbal; the original verbal root, however, is not attested (cf. perhaps Inkh. χe- "to saw" - isolated within Tsezian?).
COMMENT: A Darg.-Lezg. isogloss. The correspondence PL *-t- : PD *-t:- can only occur in the combination with a preceding nasal (*-md-). The PL form does not contradict its reconstruction, and we must consider PD *ʔart:ur as an assimilation from earlier *ʔamt:ur (probably also under analogy with the rather frequent PD nominal prefix *ʔVr-).
COMMENT: The EC-WC comparison seems compelling, but the hushing *ǯ in PWC raises some problems. The reconstruction of *ǯ is based on the correspondence Ub. ʒ : PAT *ʒ́. It is not excluded, however, that the original PAT form *(a)ʒV underwent an influence of other roots: PAT *śǝ 'snow' and PAT *ʒ́ǝ-nǝ 'winter', and changed into *(a)ʒ́V by analogy. In that case PWC *ʒǝ could be reconstructed (in Ub. both *ǯ and *ʒ yield ʒ), which would be a perfect match for PEC *jămʒĂ.
Abdokov (1983, 99-100) compares the EC forms with PAK *č:apǝ 'hoar-frost', which seems much less probable (for phonetic reasons).
COMMENT: The etymology is quite plausible both semantically and phonetically.
We should notice that this is the only case where PN preserves *s after *j- (without changing it to *st); since *j- is reconstructed here only on Nakh evidence, one may think that PN *j- is secondary here, and a reconstruction like *Hansē could be preferable. One should also keep in mind that in some languages there is occasional confusion of the roots *jansē and *jămʒĂ q.v. (which led Balkarov - 1964, 98 - to proposing wrong EC connections for the WC form *śǝ), but in general the two roots are being kept quite distinct from each other. The comparison of WC *śǝ with PK *(s̥1̇)to- 'to snow' (Rogava 1955, 36) seems much less probable. See Abdokov 1983, 105.
Note the frequent recurrence of the (oblique base) suffix *-rV (in PN, several Andian languages and Bezht. azo-ra).
COMMENT: A nursery word (like many EC kinship terms). As far as the Andian form is concerned, regularity of correspondences is violated (*j should not be preserved in PA), which is not surprising in a word like this. The PTs - PL parallelism, however, makes the PEC reconstruction probable.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (although n- in Av. is not quite clear; we would rather expect r-, as in Andian languages). Labialisation of *c̣w in word-final position was early lost in PN and PL, but has left clear traces in Av.-And.-Tsez.
COMMENT: The comparison looks plausible, but is not very certain (because we do not know what particular tree is denoted by jilʁa in Chech., and because the only attested WC form - Abkh. ā - allows for several alternative PWC reconstructions).
COMMENT: An interesting common NC geographical term. The PN form contains a suffixed *-d (with a precise parallel in Av. raʎád).
The PWC form is incorrectly compared by Trubetzkoy (1922,242;1930) with PEC *x_ä̆nɦɨ̆'water' q.v. Also rejected should be Yakovlev's (1941) comparison of WC forms with Georg. χewi 'ravine with a mountain stream'. A correct comparison see in Dumézil 1933, 50, Abdokov 1983, 101.
COMMENT: One of the most reliable common NC etymologies (see Trubetzkoy 1930, 277; Abdokov 1983, 80 etc.). Cf. also Hurr. egi,igi 'inside' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 31).
COMMENT: The semantic change 'to bind' > 'to gather' is natural, and the etymology seems satisfactory. One can also compare Av. baṭárhin 'woollen belt, strap' (although the morphological structure of this derivate is not quite clear). See Abdokov 1983, 126-127 (citing also an Av. verb b-uṭine 'to be tied' which we were unable to identify).
COMMENT: An interesting Nakh-Avar isogloss. The word seems to be genuine, and the correlation PN *j- : Av. r- points to PEC initial *j- followed by a *-l- in the consonant cluster.
