Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An interesting root, denoting originally a lime-tree (or a similar foliage tree), which was used for construction (cf. the construction terms in Lezghian languages). We can reconstruct the old direct base as *χ_wārē, and the oblique one - *χ_wōrV- (cf. the situation in PL and possibly PD). In spite of the metathesis in Gunz. (possibly conditioned by analogy with *rä̆śwē 'tree, wood' q.v. and some other tree-names), the etymology seems quite plausible.
Cf. also the HU evidence: HU *(j)es- (nom./erg. > Hurr. iš-te nom., iža-š erg., Ur. ješǝ), *so- (obl. > Hurr. žo-/žu-, Ur. šo-).
The PNC 1-st p. pronoun needs some comments. Like other personal pronouns, it is characterized by unique phonetic features (voiced fricative in PNC, the development *z > *d in Av.-And.-Tsez., Darg. and Lak. /where *d > t:/). However, forms with *d- certainly can not be kept apart from forms with *z, since morphologically they match each other very well.
The direct stem may be safely reconstructed as *zō, sporadically with a pronominal suffix *-n - *zōn (cf. PA *di-n, PL *zo-n; on Lak. nu and Darg. nu see *nV). A possible trace of *-n is also the -ǝ vowel in PC: it probably reflects *-ǝ̃ < *-ō-n with loss of nasalization (without it *-ɨ would be expected in PC). The vowel -u- in Av. (du-n) and Darg. (du) should best be explained by the influence of the 2-d p. pro- noun q.v.
The evidence of PN, PHU, PL and Khin. allows to recons- truct three different oblique stems for the 1-st p. pronoun. The one is *zā- /PL *za- = PN *sa-(*sā-)/, the other - *ʔez(V) /PL *-ez = PHU *(j)es- = PN *ʔas = Khin. as/; finally, the third is *ʔiz(V) /PL gen. *-iz = Khin. i/e/. It is most pro- bable that the third stem is reflected in Darg. *di-, PC *di-, PA *di- (where it lost the initial vowel and became the gene- ral oblique stem). In Lak. and HU, where the obl. stem is t:u- and *so- respectively, it is probably due to a merger of PEC dir. *zō- and obl. *zā-.
We may present the following solution for this very complicated picture. The original ergative was *ʔez(V), preserved in PN as *ʔas; in PHU it became also nominative (merging of erg./nom. in pronouns is rather usual in ergative languages). In PL and Khin. this stem shifted to dative - which is parallel to the general shift of the PEC ergative case in *-s_V > PL dative *-s: (note, however, that in Khin. the erg. form jä probably still reflects the same stem *ʔez(V)). The obl. stem *zā- then took upon itself ergative functions in PL. Finally, the original genitive stem *ʔiz(V) was preserved as such in PL, Khin and (with vowel loss) in PD, PA and PC; in all other languages it was superseded by the general oblique stem *zā- (sometimes even by the dir. stem *zō-).
To sum up: PEC (PNC) dir. stem *zō(-n); erg. stem *ʔez(V); gen. stem *ʔiz(V); general oblique stem *zā-.
Notes: The PEC paradigm can be reconstructed as *źwĕ (dir.), *ʔeźw- (erg., cf. PN *ʔašV, and PL *-eǯʷ /shifted to dative, the same as with other pronouns/), *ʔiźw- (gen., cf. PL *-iǯʷ), *źwă- (obl., cf. PL *ǯʷa-). PWC *sʷV (as seen from the non-palatalised *sʷ) reflects rather one of the non-direct stems. As with other plural pronouns, Avaro-Ando-Tsezian languages also reflect a non-direct stem (gen. *ʔiźw- or dat. *ʔeźw-) with the class prefixes *w- or *u_- (in Akhv. uš-di). The initial nasal in Avar, PTs (and also PD) may reflect the original EC pronominal stem *nɨ̆ (q.v.) (which could have possibly denoted collective plural); labial m- in some Avar dialects (cf. Chad. muž) and PTs *miž(:)e is probably due to the influence of the 2d person singular pronoun (Av. mun, PTs *mǝ).
Notes: A not quite clear case. The Av. and Lak. forms probably belong together; it is less clear with the PTs pronominal stem *žV-. Still, the etymology seems possible, because abstract words denoting 'thing' in EC languages are quite frequently derived from pronouns (mostly, however, interrogative: cf. cases like Tsez. šebin, Inkh. himon 'thing' etc.). It seems worth noting also an obscure element in some East Daghestanian pronominal stems: Lezg. wu-č, Tsakh. hi-ǯo 'what'; Khin. sä 'that' (inanim.'; Darg. -š in i-š 'this' - possibly reflecting (with some distortions) the same pronominal stem.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Av.-And., Khin. and Arch. forms correspond well to each other (although there is some doubt about the Arch. meaning "feather"). The Lak. form raises some problems: first, the second component (-k:ana) is not clear etymologically. Second, we should normally expect Lak. c:- or s:-; z- is a normal reflex of labialised *ʒw - however, no other language points here to any kind of labialisation. Perhaps the second component was *-k:ʷana (which would also account for lack of palatalisation k: > č: in literary Lak. and Khosr.) and there was an early assimilation *ʒa(l)-k:ʷana > *ʒʷa(l)-k:ʷana in Lak.? Any way, until the nature of the second component will be cleared, the question will remain open.
Notes: The correspondences between PEC and PWC are quite satisfactory, both phonetically and semantically. The non-palatalized second *c: in PWC is due to assimilation (in a reduplicated stem; otherwise we would rather expect *c:āʒ́V). See Trubetzkoy 1930, 276 (with a probably wrong WC etymology, see under *ʔăjʒăɫʔV), Abdokov 1983, 113 (basically correct, but with many superfluous EC forms).
There is a similar root in Kartvelian: PK *ʒeʒw- 'blackthorn, thorny plant' (see Klimov 1964, 234-235, 1971, 229-230; Klimov, however, attracts quite different WC data, namely, PWC *ǯa 'cornel' or PWC *d́ʷVd́ʷV 'awl' - both in fact having other EC parallels). There are also similar forms in Iranian languages (Osset. zaz 'yew', Pers. žāž 'a k. of thorn' et al. - see Abayev 1989, 289 - but despite Abayev, the Iranian source of all these forms is highly dubious).
Notes: A common EC negative particle; it is still used as a separate word in Nakh, but mostly as a suffix (or in conjunction with other negative particles) in other EC languages. A certain instability of laryngeal features is characteristic for auxiliary morphemes.
Notes: A Nakh-WC isogloss; the reflexes are highly irregular (because of the root's semantic), but the presence in all forms of a front sibilant, a nasal and a velar make the comparison rather likely.
See Abdokov 1983, 124 (Nakh:Ub.; the author adds also several other EC and WC forms which belong to other roots).
Notes: The root has no parallels in Dagestan languages, but has a probable match in Hurr. šid-u/ori "maid(en)" (PHU *siṭ-, see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 28). Urart. ašti 'woman; wife' was compared (see ibid., 39) with EC forms like Darg. Chir. cade 'female', but in fact may be a prefixed variant of the same HU root.
Notes: A Nakh-Aand. isogloss with regular correspondences, but metathesis (usual for roots of this type) in one of the subgroups. Besides -ĕ- it is also possible to reconstruct -ɨ̆- or -ǝ̆-.
Notes: A common NC reflexive pronoun; the EC and WC forms were first compared by Trubetzkoy (1930, 274). See also Абдоков 1983, 140. PL preserves the paradigm of this pronoun in the most detailed form: as seen from the Lezghian evidence, *ʒ́ĭ was originally an oblique stem (followed by class and case suffixes), while the direct stem was *-ĭʒ́V - i. e., most probably, the same *ʒ́ĭ, but with prefixed class markers.
Av.-And.-Tsezian languages use the stem *HinV- (q.v.) as the oblique stem. It is possible that *ʒ́ĭ was a general oblique stem, while *HinV- was used in the dative/genitive cases.
