Notes: A Nakh-And. isogloss - therefore the reconstruction of both initial laryngeal and vocalism is rather vague. It is interesting to note Osset. awwon 'shadow', Balk. awana id. (see Abayev 1958, 87 - without any clear Iranian etymology). A more recent loan from Nakh is Osset. ändärg 'silhouette' (the Iranian etymology in Abayev 1958, 156 < *ham-tanɵra-ka- is also not convincing).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The PN and PL forms correspond well to each other; the Gin. and Khin. forms, however, raise some doubts (the Gin. form has irregular vocalism and final -n; in Khin. one would rather expect a form like *č̣im).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Cf. also Hurr., Urart. χārǝ 'road, march; way' (probably dissimilated < *χarχi). In [Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 62] the HU root is compared with Tsakh. wuhur 'street', but since the Tsakhur word is absolutely isolated (the comparison - ibid. - with Chech. ūram 'street' should be certainly abandoned, because Chech. ūram is a recent borrowing from Turkic), we now prefer the comparison of HU *χāri with EC *ħarχi.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The meanings 'bridge' and 'roof, cover' overlap several times in EC languages, thus the Khinalug word meaning 'lid, cover' is a 'bridge' between PL 'bridge' and PA 'eye-lid' ( < *'cover'). Nevertheless, the etymology is still not very reliable - first of all because within Andian the word is attested only in Akhvakh.
The reconstructed form *ħG_unu is rather close phonetically to PNC *Hǝ̆G_wĔ(n)- 'to cover, close' (q.v.). We may either assume an old (PEC) derivation, or a secondary influence of the verbal root.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The structure *HCVCV̄ is reflected regularly in all languages except PL (*ḳʷäl:- would be expected) - which reflects a metathesized variant *ħlĕḳwV̄.
Notes: A rather complicated case because of numerous later interloans. Besides all the loans from one language into another pointed out above, it is also not excluded that Av. niχa, Lak. niIq(ʷ)a and Darg. niqIa also were borrowed (in fact, it seems rather probable that both Av. and Lak. forms are early loanwords from Proto-Darg.: since the word seemingly had a short front Auslaut vowel, Lak. and Av. -a is irregular. At least, such a possibility must be reckoned with).
Nevertheless, if we exclude all possible loanwords from one language into another, the root is still there: the Akhv., PTs, PD, PL and PWC forms could not have been borrowed. Thus, the reconstruction of the root for PNC seems very probable. The proposed comparison seems to us better than relating the WC root to EC *mūqV 'barley' (q.v.), see Balkarov 1975, 79, Abdokov 1983, 108; these two authors prefer to compare EC reflexes of *ħnǟrqwĔ with Ad. zantχ(ǝ) 'oats'. The latter is a rather obscure stem, with unclear morphological and phonetic structure (attested also in Svan. zantχ and Osset. zäntχä), and should be better kept apart.
Notes: The WC form contains a frequent labial prefix (with glottalisation probably due to the lost laryngeal: *ṗǝ̃ćV < *b-ʔǝ̃ćV). Phonetically and semantically the EC-WC comparison seems quite probable (cf. the meaning 'lie' in Kar., parallelling the semantic development in PWC).
Notes: The WC form has a frequent labial prefix *p-. Both phonetically and semantically the comparison seems quite plausible. [There are some problems with the initial laryngeal: in Lak. we should expect ʔI-, and in Av. - paradigm A, not B. We must note, however, that Av. Chad. /the literary accentuation is not attested/ frequently has a secondary B paradigm instead of A.]
Medial *-l-, although not preserved in any language, must be reconstructed to account for the PTs nasalisation and the PN development *-ls- > -st-.
