Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level (this root should be distinguished from *q_Hǟćwa q.v.). Correspondences are regular (medial -l- reconstructed to account for PTs nasalisation).
Notes: Phonetically the correspondence is satisfactory (in Nakh *qaqa- with double assimilation < *ʁaqa- < *ʁaka-, a usual process when we deal with a combination uvular+velar within one root); but since the etymology is a Nakh-Lezg. isogloss, it is not very reliable.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. A trisyllabic stem with metatheses, usual in such cases. It is rather probable that the Inkh. form belongs here together with East Daghestanian forms (note that the preservation of -r- proves the trisyllabic reconstruction: in usual clusters -r- always disappears in PTs); not quite clear, however, is the devoicing -d- > -t- in Inkh.
[It is interesting to note Cham. taguma 'bow': it could go back to PA *ta(r)gu-ma ( ~ -o-), and thus belong to the same root. Like the Inkh. form, Cham. has voiceless t: this is, perhaps, an indication that we should reconstract *terVgV / *gerVtV with assimilatory voicing in the East Daghestan area.]
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are more or less regular (although there occurred some assimilations usual for roots of this type). We must reconstruct some medial liquid, and it is most probably *-l- (this conforms with PA, PTs, Lak and PL reflexes; however, PD has an unexpected -n- - probably due to the influence of PD *ḳinč̣ 'gum' q.v.). Darg. > Arch. gaInži 'molar'.
Notes: An interesting four-syllabic common NC root. The WC form has underwent metathesis (*š́ʷǝχǝrǝbǝ /possibly with assimilation < *š́ʷǝʁǝrǝbǝ/ < *ʁǝbǝrǝš́ʷV), which is not surprising in a word like this. Cf. perhaps also Darg. haruš 'elderberry' (the meaning in the Russian-Dargwa dictionary is given as 'millet beverage, bouza', but this is probably a misspelling: Russ. буза ('bouza') instead of бузина 'elderberry').
Since gooseberry is a thorn-plant, it is tempting to compare the word with the Greek substratum word kypárisso-s 'cypress' (whence also Lat. cupressus), see Nikolayev 1985, 70.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. A complicated case, because of active segmental phonetic interaction. In Proto-Av.-And. we must suppose an early dissimilatory deglottalisation -ƛ̣- > -ƛ-. The PL form is a metathesis: *q:Iurt:iƛ̣:an < *q:Iurƛ̣Vn-t:V, probably reflecting an original suffixed (plural?) form exactly corresponding to Av. q̇:andáʎo < *q̇:VƛVn-dV. The final part *-cV in the PTs form is unclear (is it also a development of *-dV in the cluster *-ƛd- > *-ƛc-??). Despite these difficulties, the EC etymology seems to us rather probable.
Notes: An Av.-And-Lak. isogloss. Lak. q- (instead of the expected q:-) must be explained by assimilative weakening (before the following weak fricative -š-).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. A problem is raised by Av. q:arš:í 'board' (Chad. qirsí): it looks rather similar, but does not correspond phonetically to other forms.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The meaning in Av. ("malaria") is secondary, derived from "pathogenic worm" (cf. the meaning in Nakh languages).
Notes: An onomatopoeic root; however, correspondences are quite regular and the PNC reconstruction seems probable. The Darg. form is reduplicated; since the root is present only in a part of Av.-And. languages and Darg., the vocalic reconstruction for PEC is uncertain.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Most languages regularly (sometimes with assimilations, expectable in a root with two stops) reflect *Gɦămc̣ă (not quite clear is the *-i- vowel in PA). However, in Av.-And.-Tsez. there must have existed an irregular variant with initial *χ:-, reflected in PTs *χ:ɔ̃c̣V and in some Andian languages.
