COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Lak. čannu < *kannu. Except for a metathesis (a rather usual phenomenon), correspondences are regular (although we would rather expect -u-, not -a- in Lak.; the wrong vowel is probably due to Ablaut).
COMMENT: In PEC we must assume an assimilation (frequent in roots containing two stops) *kŏrdV > *gŏrdV. Otherwise correspondences are quite regular and the reconstruction seems reliable.
Similar forms are observed in other Caucasian and geographically close languages: cf. Kartv. *kwrdeml- 'anvil', Az. ǵirdin 'log'. Klimov (1972, 352) must be right in supposing a Kartvelian source for some EC forms like Bacb. grdem 'anvil', Lezg. girdim 'log, block' (Klimov also lists Tsakh. ǵirdǝm 'log', Tab. gerdem, Ud. gürdüm 'big stone, boulder' - forms which we were unable to check; we can add to the list Bezht. gerden 'big stone; log', Khosh. gerem 'log', Inkh. geren 'hammer', finally, Av. geren 'small log, block'). However, the ultimate source of the Kartvelian forms is probably PNC *kŏrdV (with a productive suffix *kŏrdV-mV).
COMMENT: An Av.-And.-Tsez. isogloss. The shape of the word in PA (*ri-kun) suggests that it could have been a deverbal noun (although the original verb stem is not attested anywhere). If this is so, we could perhaps reconstruct a verbal root *=VkwV "to sew" and relate here also PEC *kwĕlʕV 'thread' q.v. (another deverbal noun - perhaps < *-Vkwel(H)V); cf. also the non-etymologized Ud. beIk 'needle'. One needs, however, more data to draw final conclusions. [Cf., perhaps, Rut. ṭ-u=ka- 'to knit' with an expressive preverb?]
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. Abdokov (1983, 128) compares the EC forms with PAK *k:ʷánǝ 'basket' (citing also Abkh. a-kʷnǝ 'big basket' - which we were unable to identify), which is very dubious for phonetic reasons.
COMMENT: The root is attested only in three languages, thus the PEC reconstruction is not very certain. However, since the probability of borrowing here is very small (all languages are not contacting geographically), it must be postulated for PEC.
COMMENT: A cultural And.-Lezg. isogloss (in And. we have to suppose a metathesis *kars:am < *kams:-ar). We can also mention some similar, but phonetically irregular, forms: Bezht. (Tlad., Khosh.) kiz 'carpet'; Chech. kuz, Ing. ḳuws id. (correspondences between Chech. and Ing. are irregular). The PEC antiquity and phonetic details are rather unclear.
COMMENT: The root is obviously expressive (like most words for "bread" in NC languages) and attested only in three languages, thus the reconstruction is somewhat uncertain (cf. also PNC *ḳu[r]ḳV).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The initial *ɦ- (reflected in the PL form) may be a trace of the old derivational prefix. The root is mostly used as a noun or adjective, but there are some traces of its verbal usage (cf. the Darg. form and the Av.-And. evidence).
COMMENT: Correspondences are regular - except for some shifts of laryngeal features, usual for roots with two stops (secondary is the glottalisation *k- > ḳ- in PTs and the voicing *k- > g- in PWC).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is to be kept apart froma similar and synonymous *kHwanš_V q.v. (becauseof an obvious opposition of two roots in Andian and Darg.).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for PEC. A very similar stem is present in Georgian - kočori 'forelock' - whence it penetrated Tsez languages (Tsez., Gin. kočori, Gunz. kočori / gočori, Bezht. Tlad., Khosh. köčöri), Av. dialects (cf. Chad. gočor) and Ossetian (Osset. gocora, see Abayev 1958, 521-522). The Georgian form itself probably has an EC source.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. This pronoun is not widely spread and must have had restricted usage in PEC; however, it certainly must be reconstructed.
