Notes: PN *-q̇ in this case reflects a secondarily labialised *-Ł_w- < *-g_w- (the original velar nature of the root stop is suggested by the WC reflex), where labialisation was induced by medial *-m-. PA *ƛ̣:iʔi ( = *ƛ̣:iji) is obviously a metathesis < *jiƛ̣:i. With the exception of these secondary processes (quite common in NC languages), correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite plausible. See Abdokov 1983, 93.
Notes: One of the most common and widely accepted NC roots. See Trombetti 1923, Trubetzkoy 1930, 276, Яковлев 1941, Балкаров 1969, Шагиров 1977, Abdokov 1983. Correspondences are fully regular (except only the initial l- in Khin., which has probably appeared under the influence of lix 'ox' and läq 'calf'). We must note, however, that the usual Nakh material compared with this root is not PN *jētt 'cow', but PN *psṭu 'ox, bull' which can not be related to this root phonetically (the reduction of the syllable *jǝ̄- can not be explained in any way) and goes back to another PNC root (*ćwijo 'man, male' q.v.). On the other hand, PN *jētt is a perfect phonetic match for *jǝ̄mcō (if we take into account the absolute regularity of the phonetic process *-mC- > *-tt- in PN).
The comparison of this root with PK *wać- 'ram' (Климов 1965) is not very persuasive for semantic reasons. Perhaps, some traces of this root in Kartvelian (as a loanword, possibly from Tsez. languages) may be seen in Georg. dial. aš,iš,išo 'addressing an ox, bull', išia 'bull-calf'(a term of endearment) (see Kavtaradze 1972).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Andian forms may be borrowed from old Avar (before the semantic shift in Av.); this would explain the strange -i- vowel in PA.
Notes: The EC and WC forms match each other well, both phonetically and semantically. [Abdokov (1983, 95) compares the WC forms with Tab. q:Iar 'bridge' (a Southern dialectal form corresponding to lit. ʁIad) and Arch. qIar 'ravine' (cited as q:Iar) - a form we were unable to identify; this etymology certainly should be rejected.]
Notes: The PA form must be a metathesis < *roq̇:u < (regularly) *jorq̇:V (a metathesis from *ʔorq̇:V would be impossible). This is the main reason for reconstructing *j- in PEC and PNC, and other languages do not contradict it (the final proof would of course be the Nakh and Lezghian data: in fact, it seems possible that in some Lezghian languages there occurred a confusion of PL roots *jo(r)q: 'time' and *jiq: 'day' < PEC *Hwiq̇_V q.v.; thus, Lezg. lit. juʁ 'day' has an unexplained -u- which would very well fit for a reflex of PL *jo(r)q:).
Trubetzkoy (1930) compared the WC forms with Lak. ʁi 'summer' ( < *ʁwĭnʔV) q.v. and with some reflexes of PEC *G_HōlnV 'summer'. This etymology (confusing two different EC roots) did not take into account the existence of an opposition between *ʁ́a and *ʁ́Iʷa in PWC, and should be now abolished. See also a discussion of the two roots in Abdokov 1983, 94-95 (also with a great deal of confusion between several EC and WC roots, although the comparison of PA *q̇:oru and Ub. ʁ́a is correct). Absolutely improbable is the comparison of WC forms with Georg. dro 'time' and dʁe 'day' (Lomtatidze 1955) or with Av. riʔi 'summer' (Shagirov 1).
Notes: A Darg.-WC isogloss, but probably very archaic (see Starostin 1982, 218). PD *waca can only go back to a PEC form like *jVcwV with metathesis of labialisation (original *w- would have yielded PD *b-).
From other EC languages one could possibly list also PGB *ʔɨ̃z-baṭu (Bezht. izmaṭo, Gunz. ǝ̃zbaṭu 'weasel, squirrel'). PGB *ʔɨ̃z- would correspond well to PD *waca < *jacʷa, but would suggest a PEC (and PNC) form with some medial resonant (most probably *jVncwĔ).
Notes: The NC etymology seems plausible both phonetically and semantically. The Lak. form has reduced the first weak syllable (la < *jila). Not quite clear is the Khin. reflex: Кибрик-Кодзасов-Оловянникова 1972 have a notation ink:, while the latest MSU recordings have ink - both are irregular (normally -ḳ would be expected).
