RESHET:*-ā- in Lapp. is irregular: as a counterpart of Mord. -a- etc. < Ur. */a/, Lapp. *-ō- would be expected, while Lapp *-ā- usually reflects *-ä-; still I consider it possible to propose this comparison (appearance of secondary *-ā- < *-a- in Lapp. is attested in several cases).
RESHET:The Permic etymology is problematical regarding both consonantism and vokalism (the correspondence Komi -g- ~ Udm. -k- is irregular; Udmurt -o- as a counterpart of Komi -a-, occuring in some other cases, is one of the difficult points of Permic comparative vocalism) - cf. Helimski's note above; involving these Permic words in external comparison also raises some problems (although it is safe to say that the corresponding Proto-Permic form - or a Proto-Komi (Proto-Udmurt) one (without suffixes?) - is the source of Mari *čak 'nah, dicht, eng' (> Mnt. Bir. čak, Ufa c'ak etc.), whence Chuv. č'ak 'dicht (von Wald)' - see, besides Helimski's comment above, Bereczki Grundz. 97). On the other hand, one can suggest another (quite acceptable phonetically as well as semantically) Permic parallel for the Ob-Ugric *čǟk- 'ersticken': Komi čэk-mun- 'to choke over', Udmurt čok potɨ- 'to choke (over), to suffocate' < Proto-Permic *čɔ̇k (in my reconstruction *čɔ̈k) - a solution chosen in КЭСКЯ.
KHN:čim- (Trj.) 'gären, aufsteigen (der Teig)', sim- (O) 'infolge von Feuchtigkeit mürbe werden, verderben; gärend aufsteigen (der Teig)'
RESHET:It is, indeed, quite difficult to explain the correspondence Perm. š ~ Khanty č. Should we treat Khanty *čim- as an old (Proto-Khanty or even Proto-Ob-Ugric) loan from Permic (Proto-Komi?) - with the substitution *š > *č for lack of *š in Proto-Khanty (as well as in Proto-(Ob)-Ugric)? Note that Permic loanwords in Khanty having š in the place of Permic š don't contradict this interpretation: they either were borrowed (chiefly from Komi) into some separate Khanty dialects, where š is present (being a result of a secondary development of *č-) or regularly arose in the same dialects as reflexes of Proto-Khanty words with *č- borrowed from Permic. For the vowel substitution (Permic *ȯ > Khanty *i) cf. ИВПЯ 152.
RESHET:The comparison of the Permic and Ugric words with the Lapp. one, absent in UEW, is proposed by me (Resh.). As for the initial č- instead of the expected š- in Hungarian, the authors of UEW regard it as a dilectal feature.
RESHET:Ur. *čō(n)č/e/. Why -e- in the first syllable in Mord.? The most plausible hypothesis is as follows: Mord. *-a- (< regularly *-ō- in an e-stem) > -e- under influence of the second syllable -e- (a kind of Umlaut usual for Mord., cf. URAET 31 > MRDET 14, URAET 30 > MRDET 13).
RESHET:Still compare Hun. sekély 'seicht, untief' (despite its rejection in UEW 61).
YUK:čoɣu 'seicht', čogunn'e- 'be shallow (of a river)'
LIT:FUV; SKES; Collinder CompGr. 52; Paas.Beitr. 55-56; Angere J. Die uralo-jukagirische Frage..., 1956: 128
NUMBER:116
PROTO:*čonče
MEANING:string (of a net)
GERMMEAN:Strick, Schnur (des Netzes)
SAA:tsuotse 'extremitas sagenae piscatoriae sive pars ultima', suohttsē (L) 'das "Tuch" eines Zugnetzes, das an den Enden der beiden Flügel angebracht ist', tsū̯ɔt̨̆t̨s̨ (Kld.), tsŭ̯ǝ̑ɔt̨́t̨s̨E (Not.) 'Verknotung zwischen dem Obersimm-Ende des Schleppnetzes und dem Endstrick' ( > Finn. suotsa 'Schlinge, die die Schnur des Netzes mit der anderen Schnur verknüpft') ?
RESHET:Still compare North Lapp. cḁʒ'ʒḁ 'fester Stein, Absatz oder ähnliches, wo man festen Fuß fassen kann an einem Steinhaufen oder an einer steilen Felswand oder im Flusse (Wichmann; Setälä; Paas.Beitr. 136; Toivonen: Vir. 1921:17, FUF 19:89) - despite its rejection in UEW 62. Contrary to Rédei, the hypothesis that the Lapp. cognate of the Mord. and Selk. words is Lul. sos̄o 'die Mittelstange in dem Gerüste, worauf man das Schleppnetz zum Trocknen hängt' is much less acceptable from the phonetical point of view, at least with regard to consonantism, since Lapp. (-)s-, unlike Lapp. c-/-ʒʒ-, can't be a reflex of *č indicated by the Selk. data (as for rules of vowel correspondences accepted in UEW, they are to be revised, and no decisive arguments can be based on them). For semantics of Lapp. cḁʒ'ʒḁ, cf. the meaning 'bridge' in Selk. (development 'bridge' > 'firm place' seems quite possible).
RESHET:The comparison with FB is suggested by me (Resh.). For semantics cf. the meaning attested in North Sam.: we may deal with development 'hide oneself' > 'disappear' (> 'get lost', 'be drowned', 'perish' etc.; cf. also the meaning 'to be (partly) hidden from view by smth.'). Ur. *šukkV-. Despite Rédei, it is better to keep the Sam. word (with its probable cognates) apart from Hun. csuk- 'to close, to lock' (because of cs- < *c'- in Hun.) comparing the latter with Udm. c'uka- 'to obstruct, block, bar; to detain, hamper' (cf. КЭСКЯ 312-313).
