Notes: The etymology seems reliable both phonetically and semantically (although it is sometimes hard to distinguish between reflexes of this root and of the root *kwīnc̣_wV q.v., they are nevertheless to be kept separate).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular. The quality of the liquid (*l, not *r) is proved by an old loanword from Av. in Archi: Arch. kal 'strawberry'.
Notes: An Av.-And.-Lak. isogloss. The PEC reconstruction is not very secure, because the Lak. form may be also borrowed from Avar (with a later affricatization k- > č-).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Languages of Eastern Daghestan reflect a form with assimilation (*k- > ḳ-) and with a uniform meaning "shovel". Although this is a cultural word and interlingual loans are probable, the PEC reconstruction seems generally reliable.
Notes: The PNC antiquity of this root is rather dubious. It is nearly identical in all languages (and the probability of interlingual borrowing is rather high), refers to a cultural phenomenon, and is widely represented outside the North Caucasian languages: cf. Georg. (dial.) kawi 'fence, fortress' (probably an Adygh loanword), Osset. kaw / kawä 'fence', Hung. káva id., Mord. kav 'closet, cage', Veps. kavi 'stake', Russ. (Novgor., Olon.) кава,каба id. See Шагиpов 1977, Abdokov 1983, 127, Aбаев 1949, 1958, Фасмеp 1967.
Rogava (1956) and Kumakhov (1964) may be right in treating PAK *káwǝ as a derivate from *kǝ 'twig, rod'. In this case the Adygh form is a probable source of all the above forms, and the form *kău_V̄ should be considered non-existent.
Notes: The word is very similar in different subbranches, and some interlingual borrowings may have had happened (some of the certain borrowings were mentioned above). It is not excluded, that the Av. dialectal forms are borrowed from Lak., and that the Khin. form is borrowed from the Shakhdagh languages. However, the Tsezian and Lezghian forms can not be borrowed from any external source.
The root is close phonetically and semantically (and thus reveals a tendency to contaminate) with PEC *gwăǯē 'dog, bitch'. However, they are opposed in several languages and must be kept apart.
Notes: The Lezg. form may be joined with the rest if we assume the common meaning to be "covering" (of finger > 'finger-nail'; of tooth > 'gum'). Phonetically the correspondence is exact.
Notes: An And.-Darg. isogloss, with the Darg. form quoted from Khaidakov 1973 - thus not very reliable. However, the Andian root still must be kept distinct from *kʷašV < PEC *kʷăśV q.v.
Notes: An Aand-WC isogloss. However, the correspondences are quite regular (both phonetically and semantically), and the NC antiquity of the root seems very probable. See Abdokov 1983, 127 (although with some confusion between this root and PEC *ŁwĕɫV 'fence' q.v. - which should be carefully distinguished).
Since there is some semantic connection between 'house' and 'hearth' (cf., e.g. PEC *ɦnărG_wī), one feels tempted to compare Ag. kiláj-ar 'hearth' (a plur. tantum). The word is, however, isolated within Lezghian and this hypothesis still is to be proved.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Within the triangle Lak-PD-Avar the root may be borrowed (in either direction, which right now is rather difficult to establish), but the Chech. form is probably genuinely related.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. In Lak. we should expect *kic̣a; the -a- vowel is due to contamination with another root, PEC *ḳwimc̣_ā q.v., reflected in Lak. as kanc̣a.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level (with a sporadic metathesis in Av.-And.-Tsez.). Abdokov (1983, 93) lists also Darg. =akʷ 'middle' (which we were unable to identify) and Ud. bukun 'belly' (a misspelling of buq:un which goes back to quite another root, PEC *bɦĕrƛ̣_V q.v.). He compares this set of EC forms with PWC *kʷǝ 'middle'. Since the only reliable EC data point clearly to *kīrV or *kērV, this etymology is to be rejected.
Notes: A cultural Wanderwort, present, beside Caucasian languages, in Osset. (kärt 'yard', most probably borrowed from Nakh; on Osset. kät see above), Fenno-Ugric (Khant. karta, Mans. karda 'door', Hung. kert 'enclosure' etc.), Kartvelian (Georg. dial. karta, Megr. karta 'enclosure for cattle'), IE *ghordh-. See Shagirov 1,128, Abayev 1, 586-587.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The combination with -w- is reconstructed to account for the labialised vowel in PN and PD; it also explains a specific behaviour of -r- (as if it were in a cluster with a laryngeal).
Abdokov (1983, 75) tries to connect the root with PAK *sakʷǝ 'mane' (q.v.), which is hardly justified.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for assimilative glottalisation in some languages (which is a usual phenomenon), correspondences are regular. The root must have specifically meant 'hook, hook for fastening > clasp, buckle' (which explains the frequent semantic shift > 'button'). An apparent EC loan is Georg. kič̣o 'meat-hook (of a butcher).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The semantic shifts between "temple of head" ( > "head"), "cheek" and "buttock" are rather usual, but it is not quite clear which part of body was originally denoted by the root. The Khin. form could be borrowed from Shakh-Dagh languages (cf. Bud. ḳuṭun), but this is not very probable because of metathesis in Khin.
Notes: If the WC forms belong here (which phonetically seems rather probable), the word may have originally meant a wattled vessel (which could be used for fishing), with a later semantic shift ( > "net"). The PTs vocalism reflects nasalisation (otherwise PTs would have *-ɨ-), so it probably goes back to *kɨṭV-n or *ḳɨṭV-m (cf. the Avar parallel).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Phonetically the forms correspond well to each other, but the semantic variation ("vertebra"/"back of head", on one side, and "part of shin; thigh, hip", on the other side) give reason for some doubts in the validity of reconstruction.
