Several terms enter into competition and the sources vary in definitions. The most generic word is apparently gam {гам}; this is glossed as 'hot, warm' in [Gukasyan 1974: 105; Mobili 2010: 121] (with examples: "hot (warm) water", "hot weather"), simply as 'warm' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686], but as 'hot' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
A second candidate is the etymologically obscure küvä 'warm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245] (opposed to gam 'hot') = kːüvä 'warm, not hot' [Mobili 2010: 179] (with an example: "warm, not hot water"). It seems that küvä ~ kːüvä denotes 'warmish, tepid' rather than generic 'warm'.
Distinct from bačːukː {бачIукI}, glossed as 'hot, inflamed, set on fire' in [Gukasyan 1974: 72; Mobili 2010: 43] and simply as 'hot' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685] (opposed to gam 'warm').
Nidzh-Vartashen gam is borrowed from Persian garm 'warm, hot'.
Caucasian Albanian: Neither 'warm' nor 'hot' are attested.
Archi:ʁilˈi-tːu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 312, 384; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685; Mikailov 1967: 179. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant ʁili-du-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb ʁilˈi 'to be warm', borrowed from Lak ʁili- 'warm' (the Archi term is unjustifiedly labeled as "no evidence for borrowing" in [Chumakina 2009]). Cf. examples: "Let's wash the heads with hot (scil. warm) water' [Mikailov 1967: 53], "This fur coat is warm" [Mikailov 1967: 71].
Distinct from ƛʼˈeˤr-tːu-class 'hot' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 269, 356; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685; Mikailov 1967: 189] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant ƛʼeˤr-du-class is also quoted), a participle of the stative verb ƛʼeˤr 'to be hot'. However, the only discovered example is not very representative: "A bullet from your rusty pistol will not get our hot hearts" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 11]. As convincingly proposed in [NCED: 640], Archi ƛʼeˤr was borrowed from Avar ƛʼːer- ‘to be underroast; to be burned through; to burn oneself’ with expressive pharyngealization.
Distinct from kʼˈaːkʼa-tːu-class 'hot (of weather)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 263], a participle of the stative verb kʼˈaːkʼa 'to be hot (of weather)'.
Distinct from gɨ-ra 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245], an old derivative from uga- 'to burn' q.v. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685] qːizʁina is quoted for 'hot', borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'.
Meylanova 1984: 141, 245; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685. According to [Meylanova 1984: 141, 209, 245] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685], with polysemy: 'warm / hot'.
Distinct, however, from qːɨzʁɨn 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245], which is translated in [Meylanova 1984: 93] as 'burning hot'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 876, 900; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but quoted in examples, e.g., [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 181 sub yiʁ].
Distinct from isaχa-n ~ hisaχa-n ~ hicaχa-n [Kibrik et al. 1999: 433, 442, 839, 877, 892] ~ hicːʸaχa-n [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 144] 'hot'. Phonetic fluctuation (cf. also Gelmets Tsakhur hicːaχa-nʸ below) could point to a loanword, although the source of borrowing is unidentified (in [NCED: 415], however, it is proposed to connect this substantive to the Tabasaran deverbal adjective 'hot', see notes on Tabasaran 'warm').
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229, 402; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Applied to both objects ('warm') and weather ('hot, warm').
Distinct from rikʼ-e-rä-dɨ ~ rikʼ-ed 'hot' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 216, 333] (in [Ibragimov 1978: 201, 209-210] consistently quoted as rɨkʼ-ed, but once as rikʼ-ed).
Distinct from bikʼer-dɨ 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
Common Rutul notes:
Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Common Rutul siɣ-ɨd 'warm' (si-class-ɣ-ɨd) looks like a regular participle from an unattested verb *siɣ- '?' (apparently *s=iɣ- with the prefix s-, see [NCED: 640]).
The term for 'hot' is derived from the old root *class=ikʼʷ- 'to burn' (retained in the prefixed form as l=ikʼʷ- 'to burn' q.v.), where initial b- is the fossilized class 3 exponent, and initial r- is the fossilized class 1/2 exponent. Note, however, that the delabialization kʼʷ > kʼ and especially the Ixrek variant in -ɨ- are unclear.
Distinct from Tpig kuče-f 'hot' [Suleymanov 2003: 106].
Common Aghul notes:
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are the adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92], [Shaumyan 1941: 45]. Theoretically the Common Aghul term for 'warm' (*ʔiwqːˤV- as proposed in [LEDb: #150]) can be related to Tabasaran urqːˤu- 'warm' q.v., although details are unclear. The Common Aghul terms for 'hot' (kuče-) is of unknown origin.
Similarly in the Khanag subdialect: wanˈi 'warm' [Uslar 1979: 621, 1007; Dirr 1905: 158, 244], applied to both objects and atmosphere. Distinct from the more specific Khanag term urqːˤu-mˈi 'warm' [Uslar 1979: 938, 1007], which is applied only to water. Distinct from Khanag r=i-class-ci-rˈi 'hot' [Uslar 1979: 895, 992] (in [Dirr 1905: 203], quoted as ri-class-cu-ri, ri-class-c-ri 'hot').
For the Khyuryuk subdialect two words with the meaning 'warm' are documented: wanˈi {вани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 32], urqːˤu-mˈi {уьркъюми} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 159] - the difference is unknown. Distinct from Khyuryuk r=i-class-ci-rˈi {рибцири} 'hot' [Genko 2005: 132].
For the Khiv subdialect two words with the meaning 'warm' are documented: manˈi {мани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 117] and ʁ=urʁˤ-mˈi {гъюргъми} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 45] - the difference is unknown. Distinct from Khiv urc-rˈu {урцру} 'hot' [Genko 2005: 156].
Cf. in the Tinit subdialect: manˈi {мани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 117] (application is unknown).
In Literary Tabasaran the basic term for 'warm' is manˈi {мани} [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 223] (applied to both objects and atmosphere). Distinct from the more specific ʁ=urʁˤ-mˈi {гъюргъми} 'warmish' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 119] (applied only to water). Two words for 'hot' exist in the literary language: inherited yi-class-c-rˈu {йибцру} 'hot (e.g., tea)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184] and borrowed ʁizʁˈin {гъизгъин} 'hot' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 112] (< Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot').
Common Tabasaran notes:
The adjective mani ~ wani is the basic Common Tabasaran term for 'warm'. Its etymology, proposed in [NCED: 807], however, should be rejected, because Tabasaran wani (assimilated mani) most likely represents a borrowing from the neighboring Dargi lects, cf. Meusisha wana-sːi, Gubden wana-y, Urari, Amuq wana-ci, etc. 'warm', which actually originate from Dargi *gʷana- (not *wana- pace [NCED: 807]), as proven by cognate forms from other Dargi lects, like Barshamay gʷana-ce, Gir gʷana-ci, etc. 'warm' (all Dargi forms have been taken from R. O. Mutalov's unpublished field records of the 1990s).
The meaning or application Tabasaran urqːˤu-mi (Northern) / ʁ=urʁˤ-mi (Southern) 'warm' are currently narrower than these of mani, although apparently urqːˤu-mi / ʁ=urʁˤ-mi represent the inherited Proto-Tabasaran term for 'warm'. These Tabasaran forms look like an old deverbal formation (cf. esp. the perfective prefix ʁ= in the Southern form), but the original verb seems unattested elsewhere. Apparently these adjectives are cognate to the basic Aghul adjective for 'warm' q.v., for which the proto-form *ʔiwqːˤV- is proposed in [LEDb: #150]. However, the details are not entirely clear (fossilized class infix -w- is Aghul?).
The common Tabasaran expression for 'hot' is r=i-class-ci-ri (Northern) / yi-class-c-ru (Southern). These are synchronic participles from a verb that is attested as Literary Tabasaran yic- {йибцуб} 'to boil (intrans.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184]. Initial r= in the Northern form can be a rare prefix or an archaic prefixed class exponent. On the contrary, Southern (Khiv) urc-ru 'hot' (u-r-c-rˈu with the fossilized class infix -r-) is synchronically derived from the verb for 'to roast grain', attested in Southern Tabasaran as Khiv urc-ˈ {урцуб} [Genko 2005: 156] (i.e. u-r-c- with the fossilized class infix), Kondik uc-ˈ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 140]. Both verbal roots - yic- 'to boil (intrans.)', uc- 'to roast grain' - can be etymologically related via certain ablaut patterns, cf. [NCED: 415].
Uslar 1896: 589, 635. Applied to both objects and weather. No terms for 'hot' have been found in [Uslar 1896].
The same in Literary Lezgi: čimˈi {чими} 'warm' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 370; Gadzhiev 1950: 844; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 528] (applied to both objects and weather). Distinct from various literary terms for 'hot': qːizmˈiš {къизмиш} 'hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 189; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 521] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzmɨš 'hot'); qːizʁˈin {къизгъин} 'hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 188; Haspelmath 1993: 502] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'); kːˈu-da-y {кудай} with polysemy: 'hot / combustible / bitter' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 164; Gadzhiev 1950: 148] (participle from kːa- / kːu- 'to burn' q.v.); ifˈe-y, ifˈe-n-wa-y {ифей, ифенвай} 'very hot, incandesced' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 142; Gadzhiev 1950: 148; Haspelmath 1993: 521] (participles from ifˈe- {ифин} 'to become hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 143]).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čmi 'warm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245]. Distinct from Khlyut yɨkˈɨr 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245] of unclear origin (pace [NCED: 869], this form can hardly be paronymous to Lezgi kːa- / kːu- 'to burn', because yɨkɨr is transcribed with aspirated -k-, not -kː- by Kibrik & Kodzasov).
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiƛːVr-1
NCED: 640. Distribution: A rather unstable word. Provisionally we fill this slot with the verbal root *ʔiƛːVr-, which yielded participle-like formations with the meaning 'warm' in Kryts (South Lezgian) and Rutul (West Lezgian), but was lost in the rest of the languages. The whole reconstruction, however, does not seem very reliable due to scantiness of data.
The second candidate is the verb *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr- [NCED: 1036], from which the participle 'warm / hot' was formed in Budukh. The original meaning of *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr- was something like 'to get heated' (cf. notes on 'to burn').
Etymologically unclear words for 'warm' are attested in Tsakhur (qːˤuma- ~ ʁˤuma-), Aghul (uʕa- ~ ibʢa- ~ iwa- ~ ʁˤabi-), Lezgi (čimi).
Superseded with loanwords in Udi (< Persian), Archi (< Lak), Tabasaran (< Dargi).
Various Lezgian terms for 'hot' normally represent either participles from verbs for 'to burn' vel sim. or loanwords (< Azerbaijani, Avar).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 202; Genko 2005: 188. In [Genko 2005], erroneously labeled as the Khanag form. Synchronically, suppletive and ablaut paradigm: šay [abs.] / šitːˈi- [obl.].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: šar [abs.] / širˈi- [obl.] 'water' [Uslar 1979: 980, 990; Dirr 1905: 220, 225]. The same in the Khyuryuk and Kumi subdialects: šar [abs.] / širˈi- [obl.] {шар} 'water' [Genko 2005: 189].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: šed [abs.] / štːi- [obl.] {шед} 'water' [Genko 2005: 189]. The same in Tinit: šad {шад} (paradigm is unknown) 'water' [Genko 2005: 188].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: šid [abs.] / štu- [obl.] {шид} 'water' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].
A suppletive paradigm is retained in both dialects: *ya-n [abs., erg.] / *b=eš-i [gen. with a fossilized class prefix] / *ya- [obl.].
Caucasian Albanian: ža-n [abs., erg.] / beši [gen.] / ža- [obl.] [Gippert et al. 2008: II-37, IV-17]. No clusivity. The exact phonetic value of the first sign ž cannot be established, in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-13] it is tentatively treated as a post-alveolar fricative ž. Apparently etymological cognates to the Udi forms.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 259; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 119; Kibrik 1994: 320; Mikailov 1967: 82; Dirr 1908: 27. Exclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. Suppletive paradigm: nen [abs., erg.] / class=olˈo [gen.] / class=el [dat.] / lˈa- [obl.].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125; Kibrik 1994: 320. Inclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl., formed from the suppletive (and somewhat levelled up) paradigm of the exclusive pronoun plus the morpheme chain -(a)-class-u: nˈen-tʼ-u [abs.] / nˈen-a-class-u [erg.] / lˈa-...-class-u [gen., obl.] / class=ˈel-a-class-u [dat.]. The final morpheme -u is etymologically the 2nd p. sg. pronoun 'thou' (q.v.). Medial -tʼ- in the absolutive form is the class 4 exponent [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 55, 63; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Saadiev 1994: 420; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 119. Exclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. It must be noted that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] this is erroneously quoted as the only pronoun of the 1st p. pl. without clusivity. Paradigm: ži-n [abs., erg.] / žäʕä-ǯ [gen.] / že-s [dat.]. In [Saadiev 1994] the genitive is quoted as že ~ žä, the dative - as že-s ~ žä-s (apparently forms from different dialects).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 130; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 518; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ši [abs., erg.] / yiš-ɨn [gen.] / ša-s [dat.]. No clusivity.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ši [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Schulze 1997: 37] (in [Schulze 1997], the variant šːi is also quoted, which seems an error). Paradigm: ši [abs., erg.] / yiš-in [gen.]. No clusivity.
Dirr 1912: 36; Ibragimov 1978: 77, 212; Alekseev 1994a: 225; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ye [abs., erg.] / yix-dɨ [gen.] / ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity. However, it is reported in [Makhmudova 2001: 169] that there are special inclusive forms of the shape ye-waˤ, literally 'we' + 'you (pl.)' - apparently a very recent introduction, still unknown to the previous authors.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 434; Ibragimov 1978: 212; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ži ~ yi [abs.] / yix-dɨ [gen.] / žä-tːi (že-tːi) ~ ye-tːi [erg.] / žä-s (že-s) ~ ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity. Forms of two old paradigms ži ~ yi occur as free variants in modern Ixrek, although ži is more frequently used [Ibragimov 1978: 211].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222. Paradigm: ye [abs.] / ixʸ-dɨ [gen.] / ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity.
Common Rutul notes:
In the Shinaz & Muxrek dialects generic 'we' sounds as ži [abs.] / iš-dɨ [gen.] [Ibragimov 1978: 153, 177, 258; Dirr 1912: 36].
In the light of external Lezgian evidence one can safely reconstruct the following clusive opposition for Proto-Rutul: *yä 'we (incl.)' / *ži 'we (excl.)'. This formal opposition was eliminated in all known dialects. Normally one of the stems - *yä or *ži - survived with the generic meaning 'we', although in Ixrek both pronouns are still used as synonyms for generic 'we'.
In the Borch-Khnov dialect the semantic opposition of clusivity is retained [Ibragimov 1978: 258, 263], but the system was seriously rebuilt. Both pronouns of the 1st p. pl. are formed on the basis of *yä 'we (incl.)': ya-n-ur 'we (incl.)' / yu-qˤn-är 'we (excl.)' with the help of the common plural exponent -Vr. The morpheme -n- in ya-n-ur 'we (incl.)' may in fact be an old exponent; thus, the chain ya-n- originates directly from Proto-Lezgian *ᴌä-n 'we (incl.)' [NCED: 786]. The pronoun yu-qˤn-är 'we (excl.)' additionally contains an archaic plural exponent -qˤ(u)n- [Ibragimov 1978: 242, 264 f.]; the vowel -u- in yu-qˤn-är is probably the result of the reduction -qˤun- > -qˤn- in the adjacent syllable and, additionally, may be due to influence on the part of the 2nd p. pl pronoun wu-qˤn-är 'you'. It is interesting that after such an agglutinative pattern has been introduced in the Borch-Khnov dialect, the plain *yä 'we (incl.)' shifted to the singular number: Borch-Khnov yi 'I' [Ibragimov 1978: 260 ff.].
All the dialects retain the etymologically relevant clusivity opposition. The historical shape VC of the genitive forms (both exclusive and inclusive) is retained only in Koshan; in the other dialects the genitive has been levelled after the rest of the paradigm. The shape VC of the dative forms in the Koshan dialect (iča-s, iša-s) can also be an archaism.
No clusivity in any dialects. The genitive form ži is attested at least in the Tsinit subdialect of the Yarki dialect (Kyuri group) [Meylanova 1964: 114], Qurah dialect (Kyuri group) [Meylanova 1964: 157], Khlyut and Khuryug subdialects of the Akhty dialect (Samur group) [Meylanova 1964: 299] (for the Khlyut data see above). In the bulk of Lezgi dialects ži was transformed into či under the influence of other paradigmatic forms.
Genitive ži can reflect the Lezgian protoform *class=iǯ [NCED: 1089] with the deaffricativization *-ǯ > -ž in the final position and further levelling *iž > ži after the rest of paradigm. Alternatively, it is possible to treat ži as a retention of the Proto-Lezgian pronoun *ᴌä-n 'we (incl.)' (reflexes of the Proto-Lezgian voiced affricates, postulated specially for personal pronouns, are generally irregular and unique, see [NCED: 143]).
Proto-Lezgian:*ǯi-n2
NCED: 1089. Distribution: Two pronominal paradigms for the 1st p. pl. are to be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian:
It can be easily seen that the Proto-Lezgian clusive opposition is postulated on the basis of some Nuclear Lezgian lects (namely Kryts, Aghul, Tabasaran, and to a lesser degree Rutul). In the other languages only one of the pronouns has survived or, as in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, both pronouns were merged into one paradigm.
It must be noted that the synchronic clusive opposition is also observed in Archi and Mukhad Rutul. In Proto-Archi, *ǯi-n 'we (excl.)' was completely lost, and *Łä-n 'we (incl.)' became the only pronoun 'we (excl./incl.)'. However, clusivity has been recently reintroduced: *Łä-n has acquired the exclusive meaning, whereas the modern Archi inclusive pronoun represents a compound 'we + thou'. The same process has recently taken place in Mukhad Rutul, where the new inclusive pronoun is a compound: 'we (*Łä-) + thou'.
The ergative form normally coincides with the absolutive in all the lects, except for Mikik Tsakhur (secondarily derived from the oblique form due to analogy with other personal pronouns) and Lezgi (secondarily derived from the absolutive form). Thus, we reconstruct the homonymy "absolutive-ergative" for Proto-Lezgian.
The majority of the lects demonstrate the suffixal -n in the abs.-erg. form. Exceptions are Tsakhur and non-Borch-Khnov Rutul: in both cases we apparently deal with secondary analogy with other personal pronouns.
In Gelmets Tsakhur and Borch-Khnov Rutul, forms of the pronoun 'we' can be secondarily modified with synchronic plural suffixes.
Reconstruction shape: The voiced affricates *ǯ and *Ł were specially introduced into the Proto-Lezgian reconstruction in order to explain unique consonant correspondences in the given personal pronouns [NCED: 143]. Archi abs.-erg. ne-n clearly goes back to Proto-Archi *le-n via assimilation. Note the Caucasian Albanian development *Ł > ž (the idea that Caucasian Albanian ž-forms originate from *ǯi-n 'we (excl.)' is less likely, because one could expect Caucasian Albanian abs.-erg. **ži-n, rather than ža-n).
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal roots.
Authier 2009: 43. Inclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. Paradigm: yi-n ~ yi [abs., erg.] / ya [gen.] / ya-z [dat.]. Note the secondary polysemy: 'we (incl.) / you (pl.)'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Magometov 1970: 101; Shaumyan 1941: 56; Suleymanov 1993: 126; Suleymanov 2003: 188. Inclusive pronoun 'we'. Paradigm: ši-n [abs., erg.] / iša-s ~ ša-s [dat.] / iš ~ iš-ir [gen.]. The dative form ša-s is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], other sources quote iša-s. It must be noted that in the summary table in [Magometov 1970: 101], the Burshag absolutive-ergative form is quoted as xi-n, which is an obvious typo; other sources confirm ši-n.
The same in the Khudig subdialect: ši-n [abs., erg.] / iše-s [dat.] / iš [gen.] 'we (incl.)' [Magometov 1970: 101].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222. Inclusive pronoun 'we'. Paradigm: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ixˈu [erg.] / ix [gen.]. The ergative form ixˈu can be a typo for expected **uxˈu.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ix [gen.] 'we (incl.)' [Magometov 1965: 169]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ix [gen.] {ухьу} 'we (incl.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 432; Zhirkov 1948: 107].
Gukasyan 1974: 120, 230, 276, 279; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 471; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Mobili 2010: 103. Quoted as hekːa in [Schulze-Fürhoff 1994]; as hikä with plain k in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] (apparently a typo). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754] 'what?' is erroneously glossed as he (confused with he 'which?' [Gukasyan 1974: 119]).
A contracted allegro form kːä {кIаь} can also be used [Gukasyan 1974: 279; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 471].
Suppletive paradigm: hi-kːä [abs.] / he-tː- [erg., obl.] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228] the oblique stem again with a probable typo: he-t-).
Interrogative attributive pronoun *e 'which?, what kind of?' (Nidzh he, Vartashen e [Gukasyan 1974: 119]) with an unclear element -kːa in the absolutive and the pronominal stem extension -tː- in oblique forms. Note a laryngeal prothesis in Nidzh hi- ~ he-.
Caucasian Albanian: ya [Gippert et al. 2008: II-39, IV-18]. Apparently a cognate of Udi hi- / e-.
Distinct from Caucasian Albanian ha=nay 'which?' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-39, IV-25] (ha- is the common emphatic deictic morpheme).
Meylanova 1984: 161, 193; Talibov 2007: 126; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228. In [Alekseev 1994: 269], erroneously quoted as šis.
According to [Talibov 2007: 126] and [Alekseev 1994: 269], the archaic paradigm is ši [abs.] / čǝ- [obl.]. Currently this is being superseded by regular ši [abs.] / šiy- [obl.], see [Talibov 2007: 126; Meylanova 1984: 193].
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228] the paradigm is quoted as ši [abs.] / han-ɨ- [erg., dat.] / han-u [gen.]; the oblique forms have been erroneously copied from the entry 'who?' q.v.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Dirr 1913: 39. Paradigm: hi-žoː [abs.] / nʸi-ši- [obl.]. The absolutive variants hu=žoː and žoː come from [Dirr 1913], where a variant with -ǯ- instead of -ž- is also attested (in [Dirr 1913] forms of this pronoun are accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -nʸe).
Distinct from Mikik nʸe-n 'which?' [Dirr 1913: 39].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754. In [Ibragimov 1990: 195], 'what?' is quoted as ha=ǯu {гьаджу}, which seems suspicious (ǯ for expected ž). The final element -way is unclear.
Common Tsakhur notes:
We prefer to treat initial hV= as an additional interrogative morpheme that does not represent the main meaning here (cf. the Mikik variants hi=žoː ~ žoː and the pronoun 'who?': ha=šːu ~ hu=šːiː).
Dirr 1912: 41; Ibragimov 1978: 81, 214; Makhmudova 2001: 178; Alekseev 1994a: 225. Paradigm: ši-w [abs.] / hi-di- [obl.]. In [Makhmudova 2001] & [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754], the direct stem is quoted as šɨ-w {шыв}: either an error or the result of the influence of wɨ-š 'who?'.
Distinct from Mukhad šu-dɨ 'which? (который?)' and hi-l-dɨ 'which? (какой?)' [Dirr 1912: 41-42].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: fu [abs.] / f-čːi- [obl.] 'what?' [Magometov 1965: 181]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fu [abs.] / f-ti- [obl.] 'what?' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 433; Zhirkov 1948: 104].
Uslar 1896: 75. Paradigm: wu-č [abs.] / kːü-, kːʷe- [obl.]. Distinct from Gyune hi 'which?' [Uslar 1896: 77].
The same in Literary Lezgi: wu-č [abs.] / kːü-, kːʷe- [obl.] {вуч} 'what?' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 192].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut wi-š [abs.] / čü- [obl.] 'what?' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228].
See also notes on 'who?'.
Proto-Lezgian:*hi1
NCED: 491. Distribution: Detailed semantic reconstruction of the entire variety of Lezgian interrogative morpheme is hardly possible. The basic data can be summarized as follows (we exclude the prefixal "emphatic" morpheme *ha- [NCED: 486], which often modifies various pronominal stems in Lezgian lects):
'WHAT? / WHO?'
CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ya
ya- / e-kːa / hi-kːä what (← which)
*hi- [NCED: 491]
hi-nˈi- [obl.] what
hi-ǯoː [abs.] what
hi- [obl.] what
hi-na- ~ ha-na- [obl.] who
hi which
*šʷi [NCED: 350]
ši [abs.] what
ši [abs.] what
nʸi-ši- [obl.] what
ši-w [abs.] what šu-dɨ which
*šːi [NCED: 986]
šu, ha-šu who
ha-šːu [abs.], ša-w- [obl.] who
wɨ-š [abs.] who
fi-š [abs.] / še- [obl.] who
fu-ž [abs.] / ši-li- [obl.] who
wu-ž [abs.] who
*čV ?
či- [obl.] what
čǝ- [obl.] what
*čːʷe [LEDb: #153]
hi-ǯoː [abs.] what
wu-č [abs.] / kːʷe- [obl.] what
*nay
ha-nay which
hˈa-ni [abs.] / hi-nˈi- [obl.] what; hˈa-n-nu- which
ä-nʕa-r [erg.] who
ha-n- [erg., obl.] who
nʸi-ši- [obl.] what nʸe-n which
hi-na- ~ ha-na- [obl.] who
naʔˈa- which
ni- [obl.] who
*wV ?
ša-w- [obl.] who
ši-wi [abs.] what; wɨ-š [abs.] who
*ɬːi ~ *ɬːʷi [NCED: 1062]
ɬːi, ɬːa- [erg., obl.] who
fi what; fi-š [abs.] who
fi what; fu-ž [abs.] who
wu-č [abs.] what; wu-ž [abs.] who
*kʷi [NCED: 709]
kʷi [abs.] who
*tV [LEDb: #216]
ti [abs.] who
tu [abs.] who
*lV ?
ha-li- [gen.] who; ha-l-ǯi which
hi-l-dɨ which
ha-l- [obl.] who
ši-li- [obl.] who
The following intermediate reconstructions for the Nuclear Lezgian subgroups could be proposed. East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi):
- *ɬːi ~ *ɬːʷi 'what?' (at least the absolutive form);
It must be noted that, as in the case of the demonstrative pronouns 'that' / 'this' q.v., the South Lezgian subgroup appears to be the most innovative.
The Proto-Lezgian pronoun 'who?' can be safely reconstructed as *šːi [NCED: 986], at least in the absolutive form. This stem is retained as 'who?' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in West & East Lezgian, on the other (in East Lezgian, the absolutive form of *šːi is secondarily modified with the Proto-East Lezgian pronoun *ɬːʷi 'what?'). It must be emphasized that the etymological opposition of two interrogative morphemes *šːi and *šʷi [NCED: 350, 986] does not seem very reliable. Actually, these two are only opposed in Tsakhur (ha-šːu [abs.], ša-w- [obl.] 'who?' vs. nʸi-ši- [obl.] 'what?'), whereas South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) ši [abs.] 'what?' and Rutul ši-w [abs.] 'what?' can be equally well explained as the descendants of *šːi.
The Proto-Lezgian morpheme *nay-, or even the chain *ha-nay- (with "emphatic" ha-),is a possible candidate for the Proto-Lezgian pronoun 'which?'. On the other hand, *ha-nay- could be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian oblique stem of 'who?' (South & East Lezgian). Thus, Caucasian Albanian ha-nay 'which?' might be the secondary semantic development 'who?' [obl.] > 'which?'. It is proposed in [NCED: 492] (following some of M. Alekseev's ideas) that *ha-nV- is an alternative oblique stem of interrogative *hi, but this solution seems unlikely to us (especially in the light of Caucasian Albanian ha-nay 'which?'). We prefer to treat *nay- (not *nV) as an independent morpheme.
Data on the pronoun 'what?' are the most discrepant. The Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi pronoun was probably *ya, which is attested in Caucasian Albanian as 'what?', but shifted to the meaning 'which?' in Udi (Nidzh he, Vartashen e; surprisingly, in modern Udi, the new expression for 'what?' is based on he ~ e 'which?'). This morpheme *ya seems isolated in Lezgian; note that, pace [NCED: 492], *ya has nothing to do with Lezgian *hi. The Archi-Nuclear Lezgian match, however, suggests that *hi- [NCED: 491] can be posited as the Proto-Lezgian oblique stem of 'what?'. No obvious candidate for the Proto-Lezgian direct stem 'what?' exists.
It should be noted that the morpheme *lV could actually be the oblique stem exponent, secondarily loaned from nominal paradigms.
Authier 2009: 67, 71, 204, 366, etc. Distinct from čʼebu 'blond' [Authier 2009: 67] (which is opposed to Alyk kuran 'red-haired' [Authier 2009: 221], borrowed from Azerbaijani kürän 'red-haired').
Dirr 1912: 136, 186; Ibragimov 1978: 30, 117; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 673. According to [Ibragimov 1978], polysemy: 'white / white of egg', which seems secondary (in [Dirr 1912: 136] 'white of egg' is quoted as ʁɨlʁ-ɨd ǯagʷar 'whiteness of egg').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Note the gemination of -gʷ-, influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Common Rutul notes:
Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Cf. the substantive liz, which is attested with the meaning ‘thread of white color’ in Ixrek [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180] and 'egg white' in Mukhad (Kiche subdialect) [Ibragimov 1978: 133]. From this stem was also derived Mukhad (Khnyukh subdialect): liz-äy {лизаьй} 'white sheep' [Ibragimov 1978: 140].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: liʒˈi 'white' [Uslar 1979: 841, 989; Dirr 1905: 193, 224]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: liʒˈi {лиззи} 'white' [Genko 2005: 114].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv lizˈi {лизи}, Tinit liʒˈi {лиззи} 'white' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: lizˈi {лизи} 'white' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218].
Common Tabasaran notes:
The original substantive liz 'white of eye' is apparently retained in the literary pl.t. liz-g-ar 'white of eye' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218], although the suffixal element -(V)g- is unclear.
The same in Literary Lezgi: lacːˈu {лацу} 'white' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 222; Gadzhiev 1950: 46; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 529].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut lacːˈɨ 'white' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Cf. the paronymous substantive: Gyune Lezgi laz [abs.] / lacː-ˈini- [obl.] 'white of eye; white of egg' [Uslar 1896: 496], Literary Lezgi laz [abs.] / lacː-ˈadi- [obl.] 'kaolin, china clay; white of eye; white of egg' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 219; Haspelmath 1993: 497].
Proto-Lezgian:*čʼʷVˤbä2
NCED: 378. Distribution: There are two candidates with comparable distribution for the status of Proto-Lezgian 'white': *čʼʷVˤbä- [NCED: 378] and *čːakːʷarV- [NCED: 332].
The stem *čʼʷVˤbä- means 'white' in Archi, but in Nuclear Lezgian it has changed its meaning: Budukh 'red-haired', Alyk Kryts 'blond' and finally Literary Lezgi bačʼ-ˈuχ 'pitted, pockmarked (of face)' [Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 118] (-aχ / -uχ is a rare substantive suffix). The main advantage of *čʼʷVˤbä- is that its external Dargi comparanda also denote 'white'.
The second candidate is *čːakːʷarV- [NCED: 332], which means 'white' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), Aghul. Formally, this could be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian term for 'white', although a late areal isogloss cannot be excluded, either. This stem is not attested in the rest of Lezgian languages, but possesses possible external (Andian) cognates with the meaning 'yellow'
In many Nuclear Lezgian lects, 'white' represents an adjective derived from the substantive *lacː, whose meaning was probably 'white of egg' or a more generic 'white color'. This substantive is attested in Rutul ('thread of white color; white of egg'), Lezgi ('white of eye; white of egg'), probably Tabasaran ('white of eye'); in Archi, only the stem lˈac-utː- 'iron' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270] was retained, where the final -utː- is a fossilized plural exponent. The derivative adjective *lacːV- 'white' is present in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Tabasaran and Lezgi - the protoform *lacːV-, however, seems a phantom; rather, we are dealing with independent formations in individual lects according to a productive morphological pattern. It must be noted that in [NCED: 751], this stem is reconstructed as *lacːV- with the primary meaning 'a k. of bright metal', which should be rejected (although external North Caucasian comparanda do indeed point to the meaning 'a k. of metal').
Finally, in Udi, 'white' is expressed with the stem *maˤrcʼːɨ- [NCED: 552], whose original meaning was 'clear', as proven by its Archi, Nuclear Lezgian, as well as external North Caucasian cognates.
An etymologically unclear word for 'white' is attested in Caucasian Albanian (biki).
Meylanova 1984: 136, 193; Talibov 2007: 126; Alekseev 1994: 269; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228. Paradigm: tu [abs.] / han-ɨ- [erg., dat.] / han-u [gen.]. According to [Talibov 2007: 126], another variant of the paradigm is tu [abs.] / tun-u- [obl.] (Talibov suspects that this one is archaic, but it does not seem certain).
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], 'who?' is erroneously glossed as ši {ши} (actually 'what?' q.v.).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 139, 877; Ibragimov 1990: 107. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010]; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], erroneously quoted as wu=šu {вушу}. Paradigm: ha-šːu [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ha=šːu [Schulze 1997: 41] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228], quoted as hi=šːu, which can be a typo). Paradigm: ha-šːu [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Dirr 1913: 39. Paradigm: hu-šːiː [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.]. The absolutive variant ha=šːu (or ha=šːuː?) comes from [Dirr 1913] (in [Dirr 1913] forms of this pronoun are accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -ne).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Ibragimov 1990: 195. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the form is accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -yiy, which corresponds to the Mishlesh enclitic -yiː [Kibrik et al. 1999: 138]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], erroneously quoted as ha=šu-yiy {гьашуйий}.
Common Tsakhur notes:
We prefer to treat initial hV= as an additional interrogative morpheme that does not represent the main meaning here (cf. hi=ǯoː ~ hu=žoː ~ žoː ~ ha=ži- 'what?').
Muxrek dialect: wɨ-š [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.] [Ibragimov 1978: 178]. Borch-Khnov dialect: hu-š [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.] [Ibragimov 1978: 267] (in Ibragimov's table the absolutive form is erroneously quoted as wɨ-š).
Following [NCED: 986], we treat the direct stems wɨ-š, hu-š(i) as compounds of two pronominal morphemes. The Proto-Rutul paradigm of 'who?' was probably *wɨ-ši [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.]. The Borch-Khnov and Luchek absolutive from hu-š(i) looks like contraction < *ha-wɨ-ši (ha- has been added due to analogy with the oblique stem).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Magometov 1970: 113; Shaumyan 1941: 71; Suleymanov 1993: 131. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the suppletive paradigm is: fu-š [abs. sg.] / na- [obl. sg.] / fu-š-ar [abs. pl.] / še- [obl. pl.]. It must be noted that the singular oblique stem na- is quoted only in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. Other sources give the following, more simple, paradigm: fu-š [abs. sg.] / še- [obl. sg.] / fu-š-ar [pl.] / fu-š-ar- [obl. pl.].
The same in the Khudig subdialect: fu-š [abs.] / še- [obl.] 'who?' [Magometov 1970: 113].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: fu-ž [abs.] / š-li- [obl.] 'who?' [Magometov 1965: 181]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fu-ž [abs.] / š-li- [obl.] 'who?' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 433; Zhirkov 1948: 103].
Common Tabasaran notes:
Absolutive =ž and oblique ši- are etymologically related, originating from Lezgian *šːi [NCED: 986]. This morpheme is to be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran pronoun 'who?'. In the modern dialects, the absolutive form is proclitically modified with additional pronominal elements: fu- ('what?') and hu- (generic semantics). Nevertheless, following [NCED: 986], we formally treat the Tabasaran absolutive forms as compounds of two interrogative morphemes.
The same in Literary Lezgi: wu-ž [abs.] / ni- [obl.] {вуж} 'who?' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 192].
The same paradigm of 'who?' in other dialects of the Kyuri and Quba groups. Yarki wu-ž [abs.] [Meylanova 1964: 95]. Qurah wu-ž [abs.] / ne-,ni- [obl.] [Meylanova 1964: 159]. Quba wu-ž [abs.] / na [erg.] / ni- [obl.] [Meylanova 1964: 405].
Various forms for 'who?' are attested in the dialects of the Samur group. Usukhchay subdialect of Doquzpara: hi 'who?' / hi-m 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 213]. Miskindzh subdialect of Doquzpara: fi 'who?' / fi-m 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 213]. Khlyut subdialect of Akhty: fˈi-mi [abs.] / ne- [obl.] 'who?' / wi-š [abs.] / čü- [obl.] 'what?' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228].
In the Khuryug subdialect of Akhty, however, the system is identical to the Kyuri and Quba groups: Khuryug wɨ-ž 'who?' / wu-š 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 298].
Distribution as well as external comparison suggest that compounds like wu-ž reflect the Proto-Lezgi form for 'who?'. Samur fi is etymologically related to wu- (< Lezgian *ɬːʷi [NCED: 148 f.]), but the second element of the compound was secondarily lost in some Samur subdialects. The main difficulty is why Khlyut Akhty has fi- in the pronoun 'who?' (= literary wu-), but wi- in 'what?' (= literary wu-), although this is apparently the same morpheme.
Usukhchay Doquzpara hi 'who?' originates from 'which?', cf. Literary Lezgi hi {гьи} 'which?' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 102].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːi1
NCED: 986. Distribution: See notes on 'what?'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the u-vowel in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Tsakhur (according to [NCED: 986], this might be the reflex of the suffixal class exponent -w-).
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morpheme, used at least in the absolutive stem of the pronoun 'who?'.
Gukasyan 1974: 238, 239 (čuhuχ); Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60 (čuːχ); Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72 (čuːχ, čuhuχ); Mobili 2010: 84, 85 (ču, čuhuχ, čupuχ, čubuχ). Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Apparently forms like čuː-χ ~ čuh-uχ go back to ču-b-uχ with the Nidzh sporadic weakening VbV > VvV (for which see [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 277; Maisak 2008a: 150 f.]) and the further loss of -v- between rounded vowels. Mobili's ču and čupuχ look like back-formations or errors.
Distinct from diši 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220], borrowed from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
Gukasyan 1974: 238; Fähnrich 1999: 12; Dirr 1903: 22, 36, 92, 95; Schiefner 1863: 88; Schulze 2001: 266; Starchevskiy 1891: 499. The non-assimilated form čibuχ comes from [Starchevskiy 1891; Schiefner 1863] (in the latter source this is quoted as a variant of čubuχ). Polysemy: 'woman / wife'.
Common Udi notes:
Common Udi *či (> ču before the labial b) with fossilized plural suffixes -b and -uχ. In both dialects the word is distinct from χuni {хуни} 'female (n.)' [Gukasyan 1974: 226; Mobili 2010: 151, 204].
Caucasian Albanian: χiʕu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22, 51]. A suppletive paradigm: χiʕu [sg.] / či-b-uq [pl.] with the polysemy: 'woman / wife'. The form či-b-uq [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-36, 51] contains two plural suffixes: -b and -uq.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the word äǯ is also quoted as a synonym for 'woman' - a loanword (with irregular sound correspondences) in Kryts & Budukh of unknown origin.
Distinct from xidil 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 73] erroneously quoted as χidil {хидил}).
Authier 2009: 26, 37, 39, 40, 44, 55, 56, 73, 75, 177, etc. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Historically χini-b with a fossilized plural suffix.
A second, significantly less frequent term for 'woman' is zanan, found in several examples [Authier 2009: 56, 111, 261, 307, 375]; it is ultimately borrowed from Persian zan, pl. zanaːn 'woman' (via Azerbaijani zänän 'woman'?).
A third term is heǯ 'woman', quoted once in [Authier 2009: 25], for which see notes on Kryts proper äǯ 'woman'.
Budukh:heǯ ~ ħeǯ {гьедж, хIедж}-1
Meylanova 1984: 40, 149, 212; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], quoted with h-; in [Meylanova 1984], with h- and ħ-. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Loanword of unknown origin, see notes on Kryts (proper).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 889, 893; Ibragimov 1990: 66; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 418 sub ɨˤlʸimnana]. Suppletive paradigm: xunašːe [sg.] / yed-aːr [pl.]. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'.
There also exists a second word for 'woman; wife': zaˤʔfa [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890] ~ zaˤʔifa [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 170], apparently borrowed from Iranian, ultimately from Arabic dˤaʕiːf 'weak'.
Distinct from xɨwɨlʸ 'female (n.)' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 381].
Historically xuna-šːe, where -šːe may originate from Proto-Lezgian *-ušː 'daughter' (thus in [NCED: 671]).
The suppletive plural form yed-aːr 'women', attested in non-Gelmets dialects, was borrowed from the paradigm for 'mother', although the forms 'women' and 'mothers' are synchronically opposed: Mishlesh yedʸ [sg.] / yedʸ-aːr [pl.] 'mother' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 879; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 161], Tsakhur-Kum yedʸ 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55], Mikik yedʸ [sg.] / yedʸ-aːr [pl.] 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55], Gelmets yedʸ 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55]. Tsakhur yedʸ 'mother' originates from a good candidate for Proto-Lezgian term for 'mother' [NCED: 673].
A second term for 'woman' is zänähli {заьнаьгьли} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 118], which was borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani zän 'woman' (ultimately from Persian).
The suppletive paradigms coincide in all dialects. Final -dɨ in the singular stem is the attributive suffix. The origin of the Common Rutul plural form xɨl-V is not entirely clear. Perhaps xɨl-V goes back to *xɨdl-V < *xɨdɨl-V with reduction of the medial vowel and subsequent consonant assimilation.
In the Usug subdialect: xir 'woman' [Shaumyan 1941: 178], χumbe-f 'woman' [Shaumyan 1941: 196]. No known difference. Several textual examples for 'woman' have been found. Most of them contain χumbe-f: "The woman weaves a rug on the loom" [Shaumyan 1941: 36], "The woman winds thread on the spindle" [Shaumyan 1941: 37], and the section from the story about the bald man [Shaumyan 1941: 127]; one passage contains xir: "This woman knits good stockings"[Shaumyan 1941: 61].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60; Dirr 1907: 120, 173; Shaumyan 1941: 178. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. According to [Dirr 1907], with a suppletive paradigm: xir [sg.] / χamb-ar [pl.], levelled in the modern dialect, as follows from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]: xir [sg.] / xir-ar [pl.].
Distinct from χambe-f 'female (n.)' [Dirr 1907: 150, 183], which shifted to the specific meaning 'unmarried woman' in the modern dialect [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60]. It must be noted that Gequn χambe-f is glossed as 'woman' in [Shaumyan 1941: 196] - apparently an inaccuracy.
Distinct from xidul-f 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (missing from [Dirr 1907]).
Distinct from Tpig χumbe-f 'female (n.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 176]. In archaic Tpig, however, χumbe-f meant 'woman' (probably with polysemy: 'woman / female (n.)'), as follows from the gloss and several textual examples, provided in [Shaumyan 1941: 36, 37, 85, 95, 196]: "The woman weaves a rug on the loom", "The woman winds thread on the spindle", "The woman carries water", "Stop the woman that carries water!'.
It seems that a suppletive paradigm - xir [sg.] / χumb-ar [pl.] - can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Aghul; the Keren, Gequn and Fite dialects retain this suppletion. Probably already in Proto-Aghul, χumbV- acquired the additional meaning 'female (n.)' (both sg. and pl.) and currently tends to supersede xir in the meaning 'woman (sg.)' (this process has already been completed in the Koshan dialect).
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: šiw ~ šːiw [sg.] / χuw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' [Uslar 1979: 952, 981, 993; Dirr 1905: 221, 228]; the singular form with tense šː is quoted by Dirr). Distinct from Khanag χibˈi 'of female sex', χibˈu-w 'female (n.)' [Uslar 1979: 950, 1005].
In the Khyuryuk subdialect, only χibˈu-w {хиби, хибув} 'female (n.)' [Genko 2005: 164] is documented.
The phonetically important paradigm šiw [abs. sg.] / šːwu- [obl. sg.] / χuw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' is also quoted in [Genko 2005: 190], but it is unknown which subdialect is covered under Genko's siglum "Л." (maybe the village Laka is mentioned, cf. [Genko 2005: 219], but Laka represents the Southern dialect, therefore the retention of tense šː is rather strange).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: χpːi-r [sg.] / χʷpː-ar [pl.]. Cf. various terms for 'female (n.)': χpːi, applied to donkeys and bears; peʔˈi, applied to birds, ← peʔ 'hen'; χu̥nˈi-b (a typo for expected χˤu̥nˈi-b), applied to other animals, ← χˤu̥nˈi 'cow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: χpːi-r [sg.] / χpː-ˈar ~ χupː-ˈar [pl.] {хппир} 'woman', χpːi-b {хппи, хппиб} 'female (n.)', χpːˈi-šuw {хппишув} 'of female sex' [Genko 2005: 165, 166]. The latter is a compound of two roots, see šiw in other subdialects.
The same in other subdialects: Truf, Tinit χpːu-r {хппур} 'woman' [Genko 2005: 166].
In Literary Tabasaran, four terms for 'woman' exist, the difference is unknown. 1) χpi-r {хпир} 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317]; cf. the adjective χpi {хпи} 'female (in general)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317]. 2) šiw [sg.] / šiw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349]; literary -šiw serves also as an ethnonymical suffix [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349] and is retained with the meaning 'woman' in the compound ahlˈi-šiw {агьлишив} 'elderly woman' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 49]. 3) χpˈi-šiw {хпишив} 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317], literally 'female šiw' or 'she-šiw'. 4) dˈišahli {дишагьли} 'woman' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149], borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
Common Tabasaran notes:
It seems that šiw (some Northern data suggest the original variant šːiw, but it is not very reliable) can be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'woman' in the singular number, whereas Proto-Tabasaran χub- meant 'women [pl.]' (with various - regular or occasional - phonetic mutations in individual dialects, such as -b- > -w-, reduction of the unaccented vowel, χb > χpː ~ χʷpː, as well as secondary epenthesis χpː- > χupː-). The adjective χub-i- 'female' was regularly derived from the plural root. Variants of the latter stem χub-i-, regularly substantivized by the human class suffix -r, tend to supersede the singular šiw with the common development 'female (n.)' → 'woman'. This process is almost finished in the Southern dialect, where šiw is mostly retained as an ethnonymical suffix (see, however, the Literary Tabasaran and Khiv data above). Cf. in Southern Tabasaran the similar shift 'male (n.)' → 'man' q.v.
Uslar 1896: 519, 611. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Paradigm: pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈa- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.]. Distinct from the specific term qʼew 'wife of the same husband (in relation to another wife)' [Uslar 1896: 526, 611].
The same in Literary Lezgi: pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈa- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.] {паб} 'woman / wife' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 256; Gadzhiev 1950: 199] (in [Haspelmath 1993: 500] glossed only as 'wife'). According to [Gadzhiev 1950: 199] and [Gadzhiev 1956: 110], this is the main word for 'woman' in the literary language. A second term with the meaning 'woman' is dˈišehli {дишегьли} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 113; Gadzhiev 1950: 199; Haspelmath 1993: 486, 529], borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'. Distinct from literary dišˈi 'female (n.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 113], borrowed from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈe- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60]. Distinct from Khlyut dišˈi 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220], borrowed from Azerbaijani.
Another term is attested in some dialects of the Samur group: Khuryug (subdialect of Akhty) χnub ~ χnup 'woman; wife' [Meylanova 1964: 315], Fiy χnɨb ~ χnɨpʼ 'woman; wife' [Meylanova 1964: 394]. It is unclear whether χnub ~ χnɨb represents the Proto-Lezgi term for 'woman' or simply the old suppletive plural form for 'women'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ɬːɨnː-ol2
NCED: 762. Distribution: A rather unstable word. The basic data can be summarized as follows:
'WOMAN'
CA
Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*yVčVy [NCED: 952]
woman [pl.]
woman
girl
χiʕu woman [sg.]
*ɬːɨnː-(ol) [NCED: 762]
> female (without the p-suffix)
woman [sg.] (> female)
female
female
woman (suffixless compound)
woman, female
female
*χon-pːV [NCED: 900]
woman [pl.]
woman
woman [pl.]
woman [pl.], female
woman
*ɬːɨr [NCED: 764]
female (suffixed), another wife (suffixed)
woman [sg.]
wife (bound term)
*class=ušː 'girl, daughter' [NCED: 671]
woman (compound)
woman [sg.]
*pːapː(a) 'mother, grandmother' [NCED: 286]
woman
The distributive analysis suggests that the Archi situation could be primary, that is, the following suppletive paradigm 'woman' is to be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian: *ɬːɨnː-ol [sg.] / *χon-pːV [pl.]. Naturally, in individual lects, this suppletive paradigm tends to be levelled in favor of one of the two stems. Additionally, in many Nuclear Lezgian languages, *ɬːɨnː-(ol) shifted to the meaning 'female'.
In the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch, this paradigm was totally eliminated (note the etymologically obscure Caucasian Albanian form χiʕu 'woman [sg.]').
The Proto-Lezgian meanings of *class=ušː (>Tabasaran 'woman') and *pːapː(a) (> Gyune Lezgi 'woman') were 'girl, daughter' and 'mother, grandmother' respectively, as proved by the data of various Lezgian languages, see [NCED: 286, 671].
The original meanings of the sparsely attested *yVčVy [NCED: 952] and *ɬːɨr [NCED: 764] are not clear. These could denote 'female', 'female relative', 'wife', 'girl' and so on.
In many Lezgian lects, inherited terms for 'woman' and 'female' tend to be superseded with Azerbaijani, Persian or Arabic loanwords.
Semantics and structure: Suppletive paradigm: *ɬːɨnː-ol [sg.] / *χon-pːV [pl.]. Final -pːV is the plural exponent, whereas the final element of the stem *ɬːɨnː-ol is a relatively frequent nominal suffix. Two Proto-Lezgian variants are proposed in [NCED: 762]: *ɬːɨnː and *ɬːɨnː-ol. The former suffixless stem is postulated on the basis of the Udi derivative χun-i 'female' and the Tsakhur compound xuna-šːe 'woman'. The Tsakhur form could actually originate from *ɬːɨnː-ol as well, with the old suffix supplanted by the root šːe in the recent compound pattern. On the other hand, Udi χun-i points out that the suffixless stem *ɬːɨnː did indeed exist in Proto-Lezgian (the exact meaning of suffixless *ɬːɨnː is, however, unclear).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 332, 358; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676; Mikailov 1967: 200; Dirr 1908: 188, 208. In [Mikailov 1967], quoted as χaχǝ-tːu-class; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant χaχa-du-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb χˈaχa 'to be yellow'.
Authier 2009: 68. Also attested in the expression qʼalːi-xin 'yolk' [Authier 2009: 78] (the second element is the masdar of the verb xi- 'to become'). As proposed by Authier, derived from the substantive qʼal 'mouse'. Note the consonant gemination in the intervocalic position (-lː-), for which see [Authier 2009: 13], influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon of the Azerbaijani language.
Budukh:sozǝ {соза}5
Meylanova 1984: 127, 212; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676. A term of unknown origin.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:zɨrgɨ-n {зыргын}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 890, 893.
There are two related color terms in Mishlesh, studied in detail in [Davies et al. 1999]:
1) borrowed zɨrgɨ-n 'yellow (in a narrow sense)', glossed as 'yellow' in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890, 893];
2) inherited qːˤɨbɨ-n 'orange', which covers a considerable part of the color-space between yellow, red and brown. This is glossed as 'orange, of the colour of yolk' in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 876], but as 'yellow' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676]. qːˤɨbɨ-n is also the only term for 'yellow' found in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] (attested in the phrase 'Mortar of the yellow clay is like pitch' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 75-76]). The original substantive root qːˤɨb (with the presumed meaning 'yolk') is attested in the Mishlesh complex verb qːˤɨb qix- 'to become orange, to become of color of yolk' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 876].
Such a situation is not typical cross-linguistically. It seems reasonable to treat zɨrgɨ-n and qːˤɨbɨ-n as synonyms for Mishlesh Tsakhur.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ʁˤɨbɨ-n and zɨrgɨ-n are quoted as synonyms without specifications [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Dirr 1913: 152, 225. The variant ʁˤɨbɨ-n comes from [Dirr 1913]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] zɨrɣɨ-n is also quoted as a synonym without specifications.
Mishlesh & Tsakhur-Kum zɨrgɨ-n and Mikik zɨrɣɨ-n probably represent an Iranian loanword (cf. Pahlavi zargoːn, Modern Persian zaryuːn 'golden, yellow, green'), although details are unclear.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qːarχˈi 'yellow; red (of hair)' [Uslar 1979: 819, 993; Dirr 1905: 187, 228]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːarχˈi {къархи} 'yellow' [Genko 2005: 100] (erroneously not labeled by Genko as Khyuryuk).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁatχˈu {гъатху} 'yellow' [Genko 2005: 41]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁatχˈu {гъатху} 'yellow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 109].
Common Tabasaran notes:
Both forms - Northern ɢarχi ~ qːarχi, Southern ʁatχˈu - are related, although morphological details are not entirely clear. The adjectives look like deverbal formations with the fossilized class infixes -r- and -d- (dχ > tχ). The assumed verbal root could be **aχ-, if the initial uvulars are the regular perfective prefix: ɢ= (Dyubek) / qː= (other Northern) / ʁ= (Southern), for which see [Magometov 1965: 222; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 34].
Quite differently in [NCED: 454], where Tabasaran 'yellow' is treated as an infixal derivation from the substantive for 'dried carcass of ram': Northern (Khyuryuk) qːaχ {къах} 'dried carcass of ram; dried pears' [Genko 2005: 100] (erroneously not labeled as Khyuryuk by Genko), Southern (Kondik) ʁaχ 'dried carcass of ram' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 19], Literary Tabasaran: ʁaχ {гъах} 'dried carcass (usually of ram)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 110]. Such a solution is more difficult morphologically and is not self-evident semantically.
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʸpːi {хъипи} 'yellow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 353; Gadzhiev 1950: 198; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 529]. Cf. the original substantive qːib [abs.] / qʸpː-ˈedi- [obl.] {къиб, хъипеди} 'yolk / yellow yarn' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 188; Haspelmath 1993: 502]. Distinct from tːurˈaqʼ or turˈaqʼ {туракь} (the Cyrillic spelling is ambivalent) 'of orange color, brick-red' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 317].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʸpːi 'yellow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Proto-Lezgian:*qäqV2
NCED: 414. Distribution: A rather unstable word. The stem *qäqV- is the best candidate from the distributive point of view, since it is attested as '(to be) yellow' in Archi, on the one hand, and in Aghul, on the other (having been lost in the rest of the languages). External comparison confirms this choice.
In Tsakhur, Mukhad Rutul and Lezgi, *qäqV- was superseded with the adjective *qːˤɨpː-ɨ- [LEDb: #127], derived from the substantive *qːˤɨpː 'yolk', attested in Lezgi and apparently in Mishlesh Tsakhur. Actually, *qːˤɨpː-ɨ- can be a late denominative formation in Tsakhur-Rutul and Lezgi, according to the productive morphophonological pattern (an areal lexical isogloss).
In Kryts proper, the meaning 'yellow' is expressed with the root *cʼarɨ- [NCED: 554], whose exact original meaning is unidentified: 'a k. of light color' (this stem denotes 'grey', 'variegated', 'blue' in other Nuclear Lezgian lects).
In Alyk Kryts, 'yellow' is derived from the substantive for 'mouse' (*qʼʷˤel [NCED: 935]).
There is also a Gelmets Tsakhur and Rutul term dɨraqʼ- 'yellow', which corresponds to Literary Lezgi tːuraqʼ or turaqʼ 'of orange color, brick-red' (the presumed Proto-Lezgian form is *tːoraqʼ, if we really deal with tː- in Lezgi). The dialectal Azerbaijani terms durag, durax 'jaundice' (e.g., Tovuz) may have a Nuclear Lezgian origin: cf. Ixrek Rutul dɨraq {дырахъ} 'jaundice' [Ibragimov 1978: 222] (although the plain uvular in the Ixrek form is quite unclear; this could be an error for **dɨraqʼ {дыракь} or a back borrowing from Azerbaijani).
Etymologically obscure terms for 'yellow' are attested in Udi (nešˤ-), Budukh (sozǝ), Tabasaran (the Proto-Tabasaran verbal root *aχ-).
In some Tsakhur dialects, an Iranian loanword is attested.
Gukasyan 1974: 294; Fähnrich 1999: 7; Dirr 1903: 30; Schiefner 1863: 76; Schulze 2001: 250. In [Fähnrich 1999: 7], a corrupted form aχil is also quoted. Also functions as the adjective 'far, distant, remote'.
Common Udi notes:
Common Udi *aχˤi-l. For the rare adjectival suffix -l (or -il?)see [Schulze 2005: 229 (3.2.9.1 #12)].
Caucasian Albanian: ʕaχi [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22].
Authier 2009: 117, 169, 199, 297, 335. Historically *y=iχ-ta with the fossilized prefixal class exponent. Distinct from the less frequent adverb/adjective aralu 'far' [Authier 2009: 59, 221].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578. In [Meylanova 1984: 72, 210], quoted as yiχ-tːa-vi {йихттави} 'far (adv.)' (repeated in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578]) and yiχ-ta {йихта} 'far (adj.)'. Geminated -tː- in Meylanova's form is unclear (cf., however, [Alekseev 1994: 294]). Historically y=ɨχ-ta with the fossilized prefixal class exponent.
Suleymanov 2003: 46; Shaumyan 1941: 148. Specified as 'far on the horizontal axis' in [Suleymanov 2003].
Common Aghul notes:
Historically w=arχa- with a fossilized prefixal class exponent. Final -ʔ is the locative ending 'in', -l is the locative ending 'on (the horizontal axis)', frequently used in local adverbs [Magometov 1970: 81, 171].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ 'far (adv.)' [Uslar 1979: 423, 750, 992; Dirr 1905: 179, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ {ярхулаъ} 'far (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 200].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ ~ yarχ-lˈa-ʔ {ярх(у)лаъ} 'far (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 200]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yarχ-la ~ yarχ-la-ʔ ~ yarχ-la-z {ярхла, ярхлаъ, ярхлаз} 'far (adv.)' [Khanmagomedov 1957: 84] (missing from [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001]).
Common Tabasaran notes:
Final -la is an old locative exponent; final -ʔ is the synchronic locative ending. Formally this stem can be derived from the Tabasaran adjective yarχi 'long' q.v., although the authors of [NCED] prefer to distinguish these roots. Historically y=arχu-la 'far' with a fossilized prefixal class prefix.
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarʁˈa, yarʁˈa-z, yarʁˈa-l {яргъа, яргъаз, яргъал} 'far (adj., adv.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 404; Gadzhiev 1950: 157; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 519].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yarʁˈa-l 'far (adv.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231].
Final -0, -l are locative endings; final -z is the dative ending.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔarχːV1
NCED: 269. Distribution: Retained with the primary meaning 'far' in all languages except for Tsakhur, where it was superseded with a formation from the root *hˤarqʼɨ- 'wide' [NCED: 511].
Replacements: {'wide' > 'far'} (Tsakhur).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the metathesis *ʔorχː- > χɨr- in Rutul.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be far'; the Ablaut grade *ʔorχːV- is attested in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Rutul.
Common Udi *biʁˤi, historically maybe *b=iʁˤi with a fossilized class-prefix.
Caucasian Albanian: buˤi 'heavy, weighty; stuttering, stumbling' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12]; an etymological cognate of the Udi term (note the occasional loss of the intervocal -ʁ- already in CA).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Dirr 1907: 147, 186; Shaumyan 1941: 188. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two adjectives are quoted as synonyms for 'heavy' without additional specification, whereas in [Dirr 1907] only ʡürʡä-f has been found.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Shaumyan 1941: 188. The latter form is from [Shaumyan 1941]. In [Suleymanov 2003: 116], the Tpig word for 'heavy' is quoted as qːiqːˤa-f, which seems an error.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe qːaqːe-f, Kurag qːeqːe-f ~ qːiqːi-f 'heavy' [Shaumyan 1941: 188; Magometov 1970: 41, 84].
Common Aghul notes:
The distribution suggests that the Proto-Aghul term for 'heavy' should be qːeqːe- (ʁeʁe-), because it is present in both Koshan and non-Koshan dialects, but the external comparison clearly points out that Keren yarqʼʷˤe- and Gequn ʡürʡä- 'heavy' represent a retention.
It is proposed in [NCED: 927] that qːeqːe- (ʁeʁe-) 'heavy' is a new formation from the word for 'burden, load': Koshan (Burshag) ʢaʢ, Keren (Richa), Gequn (Burkikhan), Fite qːaqː 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155; Magometov 1970: 87]. In such a case the derivation 'burden' → 'heavy' is a late Tabasaran-Aghul areal isogloss (see common Tabasaran notes). The reflexes of Proto-Lezgian *qː are irregular, however (one could expect Koshan ʢ / non-Koshan ʁ), and the Koshan pair ʢaʢ 'burden' ~ ʁeʁe- 'heavy' is particularly suspicious. The development of uvulars in Aghul dialects requires additional investigation; maybe some of the aforementioned Koshan forms are Tabasaran loanwords, cf. [NCED: 133].
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two Dyubek adjectives are quoted as synonyms: aqʼˤˈi and ɢaɢˈi, the difference is unknown.
The same two terms in the Khanag subdialect: aqʼˤˈi 'heavy' [Uslar 1979: 599, 1008; Dirr 1905: 153, 245] and qːaqːˈi 'heavy' [Uslar 1979: 817, 1008; Dirr 1905: 191, 245]; the latter is incorrectly transcribed by Dirr as qaqi). According to Uslar's examples, both adjectives are indeed close synonyms.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aqʼˤˈi {аькьи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 24], qːaqːˈi {къакъи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 99].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁaʁˈi {гъагъи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 40]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁaʁˈi {гъагъи} 'heavy' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 104].
Common Tabasaran notes:
As in the case of Aghul (q.v.), the external comparison points out that aqʼˤˈi 'heavy' (retained as one of two synonyms in Northern Tabasaran) is an archaism, whereas the widespread adjective ɢaɢˈi / qːaqːˈi / ʁaʁˈi represents an innovation.
As proposed in [NCED: 927], the latter Tabasaran term was most likely derived from the substantive for 'burden': Dyubek ɢˈaɢ-a 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155], Khanag qːaqː 'load pack' [Uslar 1979: 816], Kumi qːaqː {къакъ} 'load, weight' [Genko 2005: 99], Kondik ʁaʁ 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155], Khiv ʁaʁ {гъагъ} 'load, weight, burden, load pack' [Genko 2005: 40]. Such a derivation 'burden' → 'heavy' seems a late areal introduction that affected both Tabasaran and Aghul dialects (see common Aghul notes).
Gyune Lezgi:zalˈan3
Uslar 1896: 425, 636. A term of unknown origin; looks like a loanword, although the source is unidentified. If inherited, should be analyzed as zalˈa-n with the adjective suffix -n, for which see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 139 f.] (historically a genitive exponent, modifying the substantive stem).
The same in Literary Lezgi: zalˈan {залан} with polysemy: 'heavy / difficult' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 125; Gadzhiev 1950: 868; Haspelmath 1993: 513, 521]. Less frequent is the term aʁˈur {агъур} 'heavy / difficult' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 32; Haspelmath 1993: 480], borrowed from Azerbaijani aɣɨr 'heavy'.
Only the Azerbaijani loanword is found in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut aʁˈɨr 'heavy' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239].
Proto-Lezgian:*hˤiqʼʷɨ1
NCED: 513. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning 'heavy' in all the languages except for some Aghul and some Tabasaran dialects, as well as the Lezgi language.
In many Aghul and Tabasaran dialects, this was superseded with an adjective that is synchronically derived from the substantive 'burden, load' (*qːaqː [NCED: 927]); it must be noted that Aghul forms for 'heavy' can actually be Tabasaran loanwords.
In Lezgi dialects, either the etymologically obscure form zalan or the Azerbaijani loanword is used.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the strange shift qʼ > kʼ in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). In [NCED: 513], the initial b- in the Udi (and Caucasian Albanian) form biʁˤi is explained as the result of the metathesis of labialization (*wiqʼˤ- < *hˤiqʼʷ- with the subsequent regular development *w- > Udi b-), but actually, Udi b- is more easily explainable as the fossilized class prefix - a very frequent morphological pattern in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be long'; the Budukh and Aghul medial -r- can either be the imperfective infix or the fossilized class exponent.
Gukasyan 1974: 294; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Schiefner 1863: 77; Schulze 2001: 287; Starchevskiy 1891: 490. In [Fähnrich 1999: 18], a corrupted form iša is also quoted. Also functions as the adjective 'near, close'.
Common Udi notes:
Common Udi *išˤ-a; as plausibly proposed in [Schulze 2001: 287], the final -a is the dative ending.
Distinct from the Nidzh-Vartashen adverb tːoʁˤ-ol {тIоъгъоъл} 'near, nearby, next to; at the side of; towards' [Gukasyan 1974: 210, 294; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578; Mobili 2010: 276; Schiefner 1863: 94; Schulze 2001: 328] from tːoʁˤ {тIоъгъ} 'edge; skirts; bank, shore' [Gukasyan 1974: 210; Mobili 2010: 276].
Caucasian Albanian: iʕa 'near, close by' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-19]. It is unclear whether CA iʕa can be an etymological cognate of Udi išˤ-a. On one hand, there are several reliable cases in which the Caucasian Albanian sign ʕ renders intervocalic -š- or -rš- in loanwords [Gippert et al. 2008: II-12] (such a strange substitution is perhaps regular in loanwords, but not necessarily so, cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: II-79 f.] for the list of foreign elements in Caucasian Albanian). On the other hand, CA iʕa ~ Udi išˤa seems the only good instance of such a correspondence between inherited Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi forms (cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: II-78]). It must be noted that the normal correspondences for the intervocalic position are trivial: CA -š- ~ Udi -š- and, apparently, CA -šˤ- ~ Udi -šˤ- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-8, 10].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 343, 351; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 577; Mikailov 1967: 191; Dirr 1908: 198, 203. Adverb and postposition. Derived from the adverb ɬːʷa 'together' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 343] with the lative case ending -k [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 60].
Distinct from the more specific adverb čʼˈaχːu-t 'nearby, neighboring' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 213, 351].
Authier 2009: 82, 87, 93, 109, etc. The final -ʕ is the locative ending 'in'. Distinct from the more specific and less frequent adverb bigila 'nearby' [Authier 2009: 81 f., 93, 94, 102, etc.].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 872, 898; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 151. For the final -wallʸe cf. the abstract noun suffix -walla [Ibragimov 1990: 83; Kibrik et al. 1999: 97].
Distinct from several words with the more specific meaning 'nearby': qːeraʁɨlʸ, yanakʸ, kʼanʸe(-qa), muglʸekʸ, oˤgʸiːlʸ(-e) [Kibrik et al. 1999: 898].
Dirr 1907: 107. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231], quoted only as bugu-li-w 'nearby'. According to examples in [Dirr 1907: 107], however, 'nearby' is rather expressed simply as bugu.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two adverbs are quoted as synonyms, semantic or pragmatic nuances are unknown.
Aghul (proper):
Not attested. Cf. the more specific adverb bagu-li-w 'nearby' [Suleymanov 2003: 36].
Common Aghul notes:
All the competing adverbs are derived from two nouns: bagʷ 'side (spatial and anatomic)' and muqʼ 'place'. Cf. Koshan (Burshag) bagʷ 'side (both spatial and anatomic)' [Suleymanov 2003: 36], Keren (Richa) bagʷ 'side (anatomic) of ram', Gequn (Burkikhan) bagʷ 'side (anatomic)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22], Proper Aghul (Tpig) bagʷ 'side (both spatial and anatomic)' [Suleymanov 2003: 36; Shaumyan 1941: 154]. On the other hand, cf. Keren (Richa, Usug), Gequn (Burkikhan), Proper Aghul (Tpig, Duldug) muqʼ 'place' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 218; Shaumyan 1941: 152; Suleymanov 2003: 135].
Final -h is the locative ending 'in front of', -w is the locative ending 'near', -l- is the locative ending 'on (the horizontal axis)', all of them frequently used in local adverbs [Magometov 1970: 81, 171].
The distribution suggests that the Proto-Aghul adverb 'near' was probably derived from bagʷ 'side', whereas adverbs based on muqʼ 'place' represent more recent formations in some dialects (maybe under the influence on the part of the neighboring Lezgi language).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two Kondik expressions for 'near (adv.)' are quoted as synonyms: bagˈa-x and ʁʷalˈa-q.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: bagˈa-h {багагь} 'near (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 25]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: bagˈa-h {багагь} 'near (adv.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 73].
Common Tabasaran notes:
Final -x / -h is the locative ending 'near'. Kondik ʁʷalˈa-q is a clear innovation, representing the substantive ʁʷal 'side (anatomic)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 21], modified with the locative ending -q 'behind'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: muqʼʷˈa-l, muqʼʷˈa {мукьвал} 'near (adv.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 243; Gadzhiev 1950: 55; Haspelmath 1993: 499, 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut muqʼˈa-l 'near (adv.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231].
Final -0, -l are the locative endings. Distinct from the more specific literary adverb pːatːa-w 'nearby' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 260] - a locative form from the noun pːad 'side (spatial)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 257].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: In all the lects, the adverb 'near' represents synchronic locative or adverbial forms of substantives for 'place', 'side', 'together'. All these formations look like recent introductions (in many case of areal origin).
In Archi, 'near' is the lative form from the adverb 'together' (*ɬːʷV [NCED: 1063]).
In Kryts dialects, 'near' is represented by locative case forms of the Proto-Lezgian substantive *wɨnqʼʷ(a) 'place' [NCED: 1054] (the meaning 'place' is retained in Archi and some Aghul dialects). Similarly in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, 'near' represents the case form of the Lezgian noun *yisʷ [NCED: 683], which is attested as 'place' in Aghul and Tabasaran (although *wɨnqʼʷ(a) is the candidate for Proto-Lezgian term for 'place' from the distributive point of view).
In Budukh, 'near' is the locative form of the noun *pːatː [NCED: 315] (with the ending *ɬːʷ(V) [NCED: 1063]), the same locative form has the more specific meaning 'nearby' in Kryts and Lezgi. The proper noun *pːatː is only attested in Lezgi as 'side (spatial)'.
In Tsakhur, 'near' seems to be the dative form of the presumed substantive dʸolʸ ~ dʸelʸ, unattested elsewhere.
In Rutul, 'near' is the synchronic adverb from the substantive beg 'side (anatomic)', which apparently originates from Proto-Lezgian *pːakːʷ [NCED: 292], although the front vowel and delabialized velar in Rutul beg 'side (anatomic)' and Kryts beg 'side (anatomic)' are indeed irregular. But in any case, postulation of the separate root *pːeƛːV- 'near', attested only as the Rutul adverb 'near' (thus [NCED: 314]), seems unjustified. Similarly, in Tabasaran and many Aghul dialects, 'near' is the locative form 'side (spatial and anatomic)' < *pːakːʷ [NCED: 292]. But in Kondik Tabasaran, 'near' represents the locative form of the synchronic Tabasaran substantive 'side (anatomic)' < *qːʷal (~ -lː) [NCED: 472].
In the rest of Aghul dialects and in Lezgi, 'near' is the adverbial or locative form of the substantive 'place' < Proto-Lezgian *wɨnqʼʷ(a) 'place' [NCED: 1054] (the same as in the case of Kryts, see above).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 289, 382; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 311; Mikailov 1967: 195; Dirr 1908: 172, 222. Etymologically isolated; looks like a loanword, but the source has not been identified.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Magometov 1970: 29; Suleymanov 1993: 34; Shaumyan 1941: 185. In [Shaumyan 1941], quoted as qʼäl. In [Suleymanov 2003], the Tpig word is quoted in two variants: qʼäl [Suleymanov 2003: 21 sub alaqas] and incorrect qʼˤal [Suleymanov 2003: 124].
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe qʼäl, Khpyuk qʼel, Kurag qʼel 'salt' [Suleymanov 1993: 34, 182; Magometov 1970: 29].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qʼil 'salt' [Uslar 1979: 886, 1006; Dirr 1905: 201, 242]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qʼil {кьил} 'salt' [Genko 2005: 106].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: qʼel {кьел} 'salt' [Genko 2005: 106]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼil {кьил} 'salt' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 209].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼel {кьел} 'salt' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 200; Gadzhiev 1950: 798; Haspelmath 1993: 503, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʼäl 'salt' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123].
Proto-Lezgian:*qʼäl1
NCED: 912. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning 'salt' in all the lects, except for Archi. It must be noted that the Archi adjective qʼala 'bitter', quoted in [NCED: 912], does not seem to exist (not found in the available sources).
In Archi, *qʼäl was superseded with the etymologically obscure form ˈorχˤi.
Replacements: {'salt' > 'bitter'} (see [NCED: 912] for examples).
Build tree