Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221. Not found in [Gukasyan 1974; Mobili 2010]. The form maˤyin papaš is a collocation: literally 'black entrails', with papaš 'entrails, pluck' [Gukasyan 1974: 172, 187].
Fähnrich 1999: 23; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. Confirmed by Yu. Lander's field records from the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village on 2011. In [Fähnrich 1999], glossed with polysemy: 'liver / kidney' (the latter meaning seems an error). In [Starchevskiy 1891], 'liver' is translated as maˤin pušˤpuš or simply pušˤpuš. As in the Nidzh case, literally = 'black entrails' with Vartashen pušˤpuš 'entrails, pluck' [Gukasyan 1974: 191].
Another term for 'liver' may be zizam, which is translated as 'liver, spleen' in [Fähnrich 1999: 35] and only as 'liver' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 204, 247] (there is no term for 'spleen' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971]). However, the latter glossing seems erroneous, because zizam is consistently glossed only as 'spleen' in other sources [Gukasyan 1974: 118; Mobili 2010: 298; Schiefner 1863: 93; Starchevskiy 1891: 506], and, furthermore, this word originates from the Proto-Lezgian term for 'spleen'.
A third hypothetical candidate for 'liver' is ǯigär, which is glossed in [Schulze 2001: 272] as 'liver; courage', although this is unattested in the direct anatomic meaning in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902]. The Udi word was borrowed from Azerbaijani *ǯigär (> Modern ǯiyär) 'liver, lung; courage', ultimately from Persian ǯigar 'liver; courage'. It is interesting that ǯigär {джигаьр} is quoted in [Gukasyan 1974: 245] as a synonym for a word tiχˤ {тиъх}, although the entry tiχˤ is missing from [Gukasyan 1974]. Additionally, in [Dabakov 2008: 359] there is a word tiχˤmiχ {тиъхмиъх} 'entrails, pluck' (the same term is quoted as tɨχmɨχ 'entrails, pluck' in [Mobili 2010: 266]). An unclear situation.
UDI_NOTES:
No candidates except for *maˤin papaš ~ pušˤpuš, literally 'black entrails'. Nidzh papaš and Vartashen pušˤpuš 'entrails' are obviously related, but details are obscure; this looks like a reduplicated formation or a loanwords from an unknown source.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:dilˈikʼ-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 221, 373; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 220; Mikailov 1967: 180. Borrowed from Lak tːilikʼ 'liver' (in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed", without the source).
Authier 2009: 23, 37, 350. The collocation leha taχul literally means 'black taχul'.
A second term for 'liver' is ǯigar [Authier 2009: 101], borrowed from Azerbaijani *ǯigär (> Modern ǯiyär) 'liver, lung; courage', ultimately from Persian ǯigar 'liver; courage'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221], 'liver' is enigmatically glossed as baʁɨr opkʸa {багъыр опкя}; the first word could indeed denote 'liver', borrowed from Azerbaijani baɣɨr 'liver', whereas the second one is the modern depharyngealized variant of oˤpkʸä 'lung' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 34].
Ibragimov 1978: 115; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221. Not attested in [Dirr 1912]. In [Ibragimov 1978], the variant lɨχˤdɨ laqʼ 'liver' is also quoted, literally 'black laqʼ'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 179; Ibragimov 1978: 194. In another passage, Ibragimov transcribes the Ixrek form as laqʼˤ [Ibragimov 1978: 222], which seems an error (cf. the Shinaz form below). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221], erroneously quoted as laqʼ {лакь}.
Borch-Khnov dialect: laqʼ [Ibragimov 1978: 237]. For the Shinaz dialect, the form laqʼˤ, with unexpected pharyngealization, is quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 162].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: likʼ 'liver' [Uslar 1979: 842, 1001] (in [Dirr 1905: 193] lekʼ is incorrectly glossed as 'lung'). The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: likʼ {ликI} 'liver' [Genko 2005: 115].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35. The collocation kʼarˈu likʼ literally means 'black (kʼarˈu q.v.) clot of coagulated blood'.
In the Khiv subdialect: lekʼ ~ likʼ {лекI, ликI} with polysemy: 'liver / lung' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: likʼ {ликI} 'liver' or kʼarˈu likʼ 'black likʼ' = 'liver' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218] (the collocation lizˈi likʼ 'white likʼ' denotes 'spleen').
TAB_NOTES:
After the Azerbaijani pattern 'black X' = 'liver' was introduced in Southern Tabasaran, the plain likʼ acquired the meaning 'clot of coagulated blood' in Kondik.
The same in Literary Lezgi: leqʼ {лекь} 'liver' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 223; Gadzhiev 1950: 536; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut liqʼ 'liver' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35].
Proto-Lezgian:*läƛʼ2
NCED: 586. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'liver' in all Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Alyk Kryts), therefore can be safely reconstructed as 'liver' in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. External comparison confirms that *läƛʼ was the Proto-Lezgian term for 'liver' as well.
The Azerbaijani analytical pattern 'black X' = 'liver', as opposed to 'white X' = 'lung', has been introduced in many languages (Udi, Kryts, Budukh, Rutul, Tabasaran).
Under the influence of such a construction, Lezgian *χultːul / *χːultːul 'lung' [NCED: 901] acquired the meaning 'liver' in Alyk Kryts. Similarly, in Southern Tabasaran, *läƛʼ 'liver' acquired the meaning 'clot of coagulated blood' in isolated use.
In Udi, the old root was superseded with obscure forms papaš ~ pušˤpuš (cf. [NCED: 868] sub hypothetical Proto-Lezgian *pVršːʷ- (~ -l-) with the semantics of 'bubble').
In Archi, the word for 'liver' was borrowed from Lak. Additionally, in Udi, Kryts and, perhaps, in some other languages, the Azerbaijani-Persian loanword may occur.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, although in Kryts, the form was influenced by the adjective 'black', and in Tsakhur, by the word for 'spleen'.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] a corrupted variant aqa-tu-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb ˈaqa 'to be long' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190]. Polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal)'; widely applicable according to examples in [Chumakina et al. 2007] and [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190]: "long road", "long street", "long dress", "long beard", "long report".
Another common adjective is lˈaːχa-tːu-class with polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal) / tall (of person)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273, 357; Mikailov 1967: 190; Dirr 1908: 164, 207], a participle from the stative verb lˈaːχa 'to be long, tall' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273]. It is claimed in [Chumakina et al. 2007] that lˈaːχa-tːu-class in the spatial meaning is applied to horizontal objects only, although examples in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273] and [Chumakina et al. 2007] contradict this: "long road", "long fingers", "long neck", "long dress", "long life", "long lesson", "long sound", "tall person".
Authier 2009: 69, 119, 250, 366. Infixal class exponents: ʕa-class-qa. Polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal)'. This looks like the same root as Kryts proper ʕaχ- (< Proto-Lezgian *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420]), but the shift χ > Alyk q seems inexplicable.
Meylanova 1984: 39, 42, 211; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. The variant in h- comes from [Meylanova 1984]. Historically ʕa-p-χu with the fossilized infixal class exponent -p-.
Looks like an old masdar in -y from the lost stative verb 'to be long'. Note the gemination of -l- in the Gelmets and Tsakhur-Kum forms (for which cf. [Ibragimov 1990: 203-204]), influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 273, 336; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. Note the gemination of -l-, influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
An interesting counterpart is observed in the Borch-Khnov dialect: filiχ-id 'long' [Ibragimov 1978: 234].
Note the pharyngealization, which is retained only in the Mukhad form (if Ibragimov's transcription is correct). The Rutul root χVlVχ- seems morphologically non-analyzable. Possibly represents a partially reduplicated stem (although the pattern of reduplication is strange).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yarχˈi 'long (spatial, temporal)' [Uslar 1979: 749, 992; Dirr 1905: 179, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Genko 2005: 200].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Genko 2005: 200]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 362].
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarʁˈi {яргъи} 'long' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 404; Gadzhiev 1950: 175; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yerʁˈi 'long' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236].
Proto-Lezgian:*hˤalχä-3
NCED: 550. Distribution: As proposed in [NCED: 550], there were several Proto-Lezgian verbal roots with similar phonetic shapes and close meanings, which partially contaminated in individual languages. Two of them are main candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term '(to be) long'.
The first one is *[hˤ]alχä- [NCED: 550], which means 'to be long' (> 'long') in Archi, on the one hand, and 'long' in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). It should be noted that the Tsakhur form is morphologically an old masdar from the lost verb. In Udi and Budukh, however, this root is attested in the meaning 'up, on top'.
The second is *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420], whose adjectival derivates are attested with the meaning 'long' in Udi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the other. In Archi and the rest of Nuclear Lezgian, this stem means 'to be high' or 'to rise, raise'.
Two roots mirror each other in this "criss-crossed" situation. External comparison, however, strongly suggests that *[hˤ]alχä- [NCED: 550] is to be reconstructed with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'to be long', whereas *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420] meant 'to rise, be high'.
The second Archi verb 'to be long' originates from *yaqːV- [NCED: 275], whose original meaning was '(to be) high' vel sim. In Alyk Kryts, the etymologically unclear word ʕaqa 'long' occurs.
Replacements: {'to rise, be high' > 'long'} (Udi, Kryts, Budukh, Archi), {'(to be) long' > 'up, on top'} (Udi, Budukh).
Reconstruction shape: Exact reconstruction of the initial laryngeal is unclear; metathesis of l and χ is observed in several lects.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be long'.
Ibragimov 1990: 39; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 104. Missing from [Kibrik et al. 1999]. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 104], quoted as wixːʸ- (pl. wixːʸ-ar {виххьяр}) with tense -xːʸ-, which seems an error, cf. the plural form wixʸ-ar {вихьʹар} in [Ibragimov 1990: 39] and lax -xʸ- in Mikik. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 160], erroneously quoted as wix {вихь}.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: nicː 'louse' [Uslar 1979: 871, 991; Dirr 1905: 198, 225]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Genko 2005: 127].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Genko 2005: 127]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244].
The same in Literary Lezgi: net [abs.] / netʼ-rˈe- [obl.] / netʼ-ˈer [pl.] {нет} 'louse' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 252; Gadzhiev 1950: 104; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut net [abs.] / net-rˈa- [obl.] / netː-ˈer [pl.] 'louse' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 94].
In the Usukhchay subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect (Samur group) netʼ shifted to the meaning 'nit' [Meylanova 1964: 225], but the new Usukhchay word for 'louse' is not documented.
Proto-Lezgian:*näcʼː1
NCED: 846. Distribution: This stem is retained as the root for 'louse' in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi) and in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), having been lost in the rest of Nuclear Lezgian.
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), *näcʼː was superseded with *loɬ(ʷ) [LEDb: #162]. Further etymology of the latter is unclear. It must be noted that *loɬ(ʷ) 'louse' is not a Proto-Nuclear Lezgian replacement, but represents a more late introduction of Proto-South Lezgian and Proto-West Lezgian (perhaps of areal nature).
Gukasyan 1974: 130; Mobili 2010: 155; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Dirr 1903: 14, 16, 25, 51, 63, 93; Schiefner 1863: 77; Schulze 2001: 286. Polysemy: 'man / husband'. In [Dirr 1903], as in some other cases, consistently transcribed with šˤ (išˤu {иш̆у}); also sporadically with šˤ in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], although the normal spelling is š, see [Schulze 2001: 286].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *išu [sg.] / *iš-qːar- [pl.]. The plural form is apparently an old compound. Its second element qːar is unattested elsewhere in Modern Udi, but corresponds to Caucasian Albanian qʼar 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic) (q.v.)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30]. The plural stem iš-qːar- spread into singular forms in Nidzh (a normal process for such words), but became lost in modern Vartashen. The most archaic situation is apparently attested in archaic Vartashen, where iš-qːar- is retained for plural (see [Schiefner 1863: 77] and [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902: Mk. 6.44], although in [Dirr 1903: 25] a "regular" paradigm of išu is quoted). Contamination with Azerbaijani kiši 'man' (as proposed in [Schulze 2001: 287]) is improbable and unnecessary.
Caucasian Albanian: išu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21, 48]. Suppletive paradigm with the following polysemy: išu 'man; person' [sg.] / žin 'men; people' [pl.], see [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-17, 21, 48].
Authier 2009: 31, 39, 68, 69, 74, etc. Specified as 'married man' in [Authier 2009: 30, 34]. The borrowed term adami 'person' q.v. can also be used in the meaning 'man', e.g., [Authier 2009: 73].
Another loanword, kʸiši 'man' (< Azerbaijani kiši 'man'), can also be used [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: adami [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59]. Polysemy: 'man / husband'. Distinct from inherited wɨɣɨl 'husband (said by wife of her husband when addressing him in the 3rd person)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220].
Dirr 1912: 127, 195; Ibragimov 1978: 26, 42, 115. In [Dirr 1912], quoted with assimilation: wuɣɨl. According to [Dirr 1912], polysemy: 'man / husband' ('male (n.)' is expressed by the suffixed wuɣɨl-dɨ). According to [Ibragimov 1978], with polysemy: 'male (n.) / man / husband'. In [Makhmudova 2001: 11, 18], 'man; male (n.)' is quoted with a suffixal extension (wɨɣɨl-dɨ) in sg., and in plain root form(wɨɣl-e) in pl. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 71], erroneously quoted as wɨʁɨl-dɨ {выгъылды}.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. Final -r is the attributive suffixe (fossilized class exponent) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Strictly speaking, Kibrik & Kodzasov's Burshag form ile-r 'man' looks either like a recent introduction or an occasional formation, because both in [Shaumyan 1941: 142] and [Suleymanov 2003: 87] ile-r is translated as 'male (n.); male (adj.)' (this is the Common Aghul adjective for 'male', see Shaumyan's data), whereas for 'man' it is the wandering loanword that is quoted in these sources: Burshag armi, Khudig almi 'man; person' [Shaumyan 1941: 143; Suleymanov 2003: 86].
Distinct from Burshag šːʷuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Magometov 1970: 23, 39; Suleymanov 2003: 205; Shaumyan 1941: 164] (glossed as 'husband; man' by Suleymanov and Shaumyan; transcribed as šʷuy {швуй} by Suleymanov). Cf. the etymological counterparts in other subdialects: Arsug šʷuy, Khudig xüy 'husband' [Magometov 1970: 39; Suleymanov 2003: 205].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. The same loanword in the Usug subdialect: idemi 'man' [Shaumyan 1941: 143].
Distinct from the inherited Richa šuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59] and uqʼar-f 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (← uqʼar 'ram').
Gequn Aghul:eremi-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Dirr 1907: 113; Shaumyan 1941: 143. Cf. the example: "If you are a man, stay until he comes in the city" [Dirr 1907: 51].
Distinct from the inherited šuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Dirr 1907: 155; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by Dirr and Shaumyan), uqʼar-f 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] and ile-f 'male (adj.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 142].
Fite Aghul:edim-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59.
Distinct from the inherited xüy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Magometov 1970: 39; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by Shaumyan) and ilːi-t 'male (n.); male (adj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
Aghul (proper):idemi-1
Suleymanov 2003: 86; Shaumyan 1941: 143. The same loanword in the Tsirkhe subdialect: arami 'man' [Shaumyan 1941: 143].
Distinct from Tpig inherited šuy 'husband' [Suleymanov 2003: 205; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by both Suleymanov and Shaumyan) and ilːe-f 'male (n.); male (adj.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 87; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
AGX_NOTES:
It is likely that šːʷuy (šuy, xüy) must be posited as the Proto-Aghul term for 'man (male human being)', with polysemy: 'man / husband'. Synchronically, šuy is frequently glossed as 'man; husband' [Dirr 1907; Shaumyan 1941; Suleymanov 2003], despite the fact that in all found textual examples, šuy specifically means 'husband' rather than generic 'man'. Aghul šuy also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Magometov 1970: 89], which also confirms the proto-meaning 'man'.
In modern dialects the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term has been introduced for the meaning 'man': idemi with the rhotacized variant eremi (for the rhotacism in Aghul and Tabasaran dialects see [Suleymanov 1993: 69 f.; NCED: 125]), further armi and even almi. On the contrary, in the Koshan dialect the old word for 'male' (ile-r) shifted to the meaning 'man'.
The situation in the Khanag subdialect is almost identical: žʷi [abs.] / žʷiw-ˈ [obl.] 'man' [Uslar 1979: 686, 998; Dirr 1905: 168, 234]. Opposed to žilˈi 'male (adj.)', with the class exponents: žilˈu-w 'male (n.)', žilˈu-r 'husband' [Uslar 1979: 686, 998; Dirr 1905: 168, 234]. The additional Khanag term is šʷi [abs.] / šʷiw-ˈ [obl.] 'husband' [Uslar 1979: 987, 998] (not quoted in [Dirr 1905]).
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: žʷi [abs.] / žʷiw-ˈ [obl.] {жви} 'man' [Genko 2005: 69]. Opposed to žilˈi {жили} 'of male sex', with the class exponents: žilˈu-w {жилув} 'male (n.)', žilˈu-r {жилур} 'husband' [Genko 2005: 65]. As in the case of Khanag, there also exists an additional Khyuryuk term for 'husband': šʷi [abs.] / šʷiw-ˈ [obl.] {шви} [Genko 2005: 192].
Somewhat differently in the Khiv subdialect: žilˈi {жили} 'of male sex', with class exponents: žilˈi-b {жилиб} 'male (n.)', žilˈi-r {жилир} 'husband' [Genko 2005: 65] (these forms are not marked by Genko as Khiv due to accidental omission of the plus sign). 'Man' is expressed as Khiv žilˈi žʷuw {жили жвув}, literary 'male žʷuw' [Genko 2005: 65]; Khiv žʷuw {жвув} also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Genko 2005: 69]. There exists an additional Khiv term for 'husband': šʷuw {швув} - the oblique stem, used only in the expression 'to marry', literally 'to go to the husband' [Genko 2005: 193].
The simplest system is attested in Literary Tabasaran: žilˈi {жили} 'male (adj.)', with class exponent: žilˈi-r {жилир} with polysemy: 'man / husband' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 163]. The old term žʷi [abs.] / žʷuw-ˈ [obl.] {жви} shifted to the meaning 'strong young guy, daring fellow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 160]; literary žʷi / žʷuw- also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 160] and is retained with the meaning 'man' in the compound ahlˈi-žʷi 'elderly man' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 49]. Two loanwords with the meaning 'man' are also present in Literary Tabasaran: admˈi {адми} 'person (q.v.); man' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 50], ultimately borrowed from Arabic; erkˈek {эркек} 'man; male (n.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 356], borrowed from Azerbaijani erkäk 'male (n.), man'.
TAB_NOTES:
The terms žʷi (obl. žʷuw-) 'man' and žili- 'male (adj.); male (n.); husband' can safely be reconstructed for Proto-Tabasaran. The Northern dialect is the most archaic; in the Southern subdialects žʷi 'man' tends to be superseded with žili- or with loans.
The Southern absolutive form žʷuw was levelled after the oblique forms (the original paradigm is retained in the Northern dialect).
The main problem is the word šʷi (obl. šʷiw- ~ šʷuw-) 'husband', attested in some Northern and Southern subdialects (see the data above; šʷi / šʷuw- 'husband' is also mentioned in [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 348] as "dialectal"). Both žʷi 'man' and šʷi 'husband' originate from Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy 'man', but šʷi 'husband' apparently represents a wandering loanword, which ultimately originates from a certain Tabasaran dialect (or even a distinct Lezgian language), where such a reflex of *šː is regular.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: itːˈim {итим} 'man' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 141; Gadzhiev 1950: 370; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522]. Distinct from inherited ʁül {гъуьл} 'husband' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 95; Haspelmath 1993: 490].
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yetːˈem 'man' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59]. Distinct from inherited χül 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59] and borrowed erkˈek 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (< Azerbaijani erkäk 'male (n.), man').
Lezgi itːim, yetːem and the syncopated variant tːim represent a wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term for 'man; human being'.
The old root for ‘man’ is retained as a nominal male ethnonymical suffix: Literary -wi [abs.] / -žuw- [obl.] [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 126; Haspelmath 1993: 106], Yarki -ɣü, Gyune -gü, Akhty -žü [Meylanova 1964: 330].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːʷiy1
NCED: 336. Distribution: This stem is attested with the meaning 'man' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: West Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Aghul, Tabasaran. In Lezgi, this root has survived as a male ethnonymical suffix.
In Archi, the meaning 'man' is expressed by *wV(r)š- [NCED: 1043], which was lost in the rest of Lezgian (although cf. the Caucasian Albanian plural stem uš-b-o 'husbands' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-35]). Therefore, its original semantics cannot be established, but external North Caucasian comparison points to the meaning 'male' or, more narrowly, 'bull-calf'.
In Rutul, the root *morƛːɨl / *uorƛːɨl 'male (n.)' [NCED: 830] has acquired the meaning 'man'.
Similarly, in Koshan Aghul and Literary Tabasaran, *šːʷiy 'man' was superseded with *ƛːilV- [NCED: 749], whose original meaning was 'male' at least on the Proto-East Lezgian level.
Superseded with Arabic or Azerbaijani loanwords in Tsakhur, Aghul and Tabasaran dialects.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular. Metathesis in Caucasian Albanian-Udi; fossilized plural suffix in West Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *šːʷiya-. It is possible to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian polysemy 'man / person', see notes on 'person'.
Common Udi *gele or *gölö. A possible etymology is proposed in [NCED: 410 f.] - a suffixal formation ge-le from the Lezgian verb *ʔekːV- 'to grow' (with the reduction of the first vowel). The root *ʔekːV- is actually very rarely attested as an independent verb in Lezgian languages, but the parallelism Udi ge-le 'many' ~ Tsakhur gey-class 'much, very' is important. On the other hand, Udi forms might be borrowed, but no appropriate sources have been revealed up to now (cf. Azerbaijani dialectal kalan 'many, numerous'). It is claimed in [Schulze 2001: 279] that the Udi terms were borrowed from Iranian (namely < Kurdish gala(k) 'much, very'), which does not seem very likely from a sociolinguistic point of view, since Kurdish linguistic influence on Udi is very modest (if it exists at all) and the idea of a borrowing of such a basic term from Kurdish can hardly be accepted.
Caucasian Albanian: avel 'many, much; more; enough' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7]. Gippert & Schulze's idea [Gippert et al. 2008: II-80, IV-7] that avel is borrowed from Armenian aweli 'exceeding, superfluous; more' is improbable both from a semantic (the Armenian term does not mean 'many') and sociolinguistic point of view (Armenian influence on Caucasian Albanian was apparently very weak, since there are only one or two reliable Armenian loans in the known Caucasian Albanian lexicon, see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-80 f.]). Distinct from hutʼun 'so much, so many' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-27].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Mikailov 1967: 194.
There are three standard ways to express the semantics of 'many' in Archi, and the available sources do not permit to establish the formal difference between them.
1) The uninflected adjective/adverb nˈaːqʼukan ~ nˈoːqʼukan ~ nˈoːqʼukun and inflected adjective nˈaːqʼukun-nu-class. Browsing through texts suggests that these words are the most frequent expressions for 'many'. That is why we prefer to fill the slot with these forms.
Examples with countable objects: "The king gave many gifts to the children and let them go" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 95]; "Many goods were spent on this" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 104]; "Many of Muha Muhammad's sheep have perished" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113]; "We have gathered many stones" [Chumakina et al. 2007]; "Many people were killed during the war" [Chumakina et al. 2007]; "Many people have come" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285]; "There are a lot of partridges around Archiba" [Mikailov 1967: 148]; "There are many birthmarks on her face" [Mikailov 1967: 149]; "When she cries, many tears fall down" [Mikailov 1967: 112].
Examples with uncountable objects: "Her husband just arrived and brought a lot of riches from Azerbaijan" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 46]; "I have plenty of troubles besides this"[Kibrik et al. 1977b: 97]; "I have a lot of money" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 117]; "There is plenty of stone in Archiba" [Mikailov 1967: 146]; "In winter there is a lot of snow here" [Mikailov 1967: 149]; "After that, a lot of food appeared before them" [Mikailov 1967: 156, 158]; "We have stayed there for a long time (= much time)" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 106]; "The husband became sad, he was very much worried" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 39]
Two other expressions for 'many' seem statistically less frequent.
2) The stative verb lˈabχan 'to be many, be much, be a lot' and the derived adverb lˈabχan-ši 'much, many' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270, 367; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609; Mikailov 1967: 190].
Examples with countable objects:
"To provide many sheep for the state..." [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 117]; "At that time there were many sheep" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113]; "There are many fruits here" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270]; "I have more text books than exercise books" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270]; "many people" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 112]; "The rich man had a few children, whereas the poor man had a lot" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 69].
One example with uncountable objects: "The Russians had much (war) force" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 170-171]
3) The adverb dunˈaːla ~ dunˈaːlu 'many, much, often' and the derived adjective dunˈaːla-tːi-class [Chumakina et al. 2007] [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 224; Dirr 1908: 142, 213]. These are probably normally applied to intensive or repetitive actions or abstract objects, as in, e.g., "He was beaten a lot" [Dirr 1908: 142]. Although there is a number of instances with countable objects: "Many houses" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 112]; "Many quarrels", "Many scuffles"[Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113, 114]; "[Formerly] there were not many diseases" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116 f.]; "At that time many poor men were in the kolkhoz" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116]; "Many men", "Many women", "Many rams" [Dirr 1908: 142]. It is claimed in [Chumakina 2009] that Archi dunˈaːlu is borrowed from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world', but this solution is improbable from the semantic point of view.
In one example nˈaːqʼukan and dunˈaːla function as virtual synonyms: "We frequently (dunˈaːla) went to Šura, Džungutay, Kumukh for trading, frequently (nˈaːqʼukan) went" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 115 f.]
Kryts (proper):parä-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Saadiev 1994: 419; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. In [Saadiev 1994] quoted as para. Polysemy: 'many, much / very'. A Wanderwort, attested in several Lezgian languages with irregular sound correspondences. Apparently a loanword of Iranian origin.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] also a synonym χayli 'many' is quoted, borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Alyk Kryts:χayla-1
Authier 2009: 107. Glossed as 'many, much, very'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Meylanova 1984: 101, 221; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Talibov 2007: 154. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609] quite erroneously quoted as "kiǯe, läħ" {кидже, лаьхI}. Polysemy: 'many (countable obj.) / much, a lot of (uncountable obj.) / very'. Cf. such examples as "Many years have passed" [Meylanova 1984: 101], "Brother has a lot of money" [Talibov 2007: 154], etc. Final -ki is the adjective suffix [Talibov 2007: 108], -ǯe is the adverbial suffix [Talibov 2007: 237].
A close synonym is χeyli {хейли} 'many, much' [Meylanova 1984: 146, 221; Talibov 2007: 154], borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Distinct from artuχ {артух} 'more; too much' [Meylanova 1984: 21].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 101, 104, 106, 108, 134, 152, 181, 201, 207, 213, 239, 286, 295, 361, 365, 426, 609, 692, etc.; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. Applied to countable and uncountable objects. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 369], inaccurately glossed as 'more, loudly, high'.
A less frequent word is χiːlʸǯe 'many, much (countable & uncountable obj.), enough' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 109, 152], borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ-ǯä 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Cf. also non-frequent gʸeː-class ~ gʸey-class {гейб, гейд} 'much; very' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 117, 874, 895; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 112] (applied only to uncountable objects?).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: χˤa-class-adv.class-bɨ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233]. Applied to countable objects (final -bɨ is the plural marker; for uncountable objects the simple χˤa-class-adv is used).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609], the modern depharyngealized variant is quoted: χa-class-adv.class {хатта}. Applied to countable and uncountable objects.
TKR_NOTES:
Tsakhur χˤa- (~ χe-) represents the same root as 'big' q.v.
Mukhad Rutul:bala {бала}4
Dirr 1912: 124, 194; Ibragimov 1978: 71, 76; Makhmudova 2001: 201, 206; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'.
Ixrek Rutul:balä {балаь}4
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 32, 355, 434; In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609], quoted as bala. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'.
Luchek Rutul:bala4
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
RUT_NOTES:
Term of unclear origin; possibly an Iranian loanword?
Koshan Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Suleymanov 2003: 141; Shaumyan 1941: 153. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233], pːara is applied to countable objects, distinct from acʼina 'much (uncountable obj.)'. In [Shaumyan 1941: 130-131], however, there is an example where Burshag pːara is applied to an uncountable object: "This merchant had a lot of riches".
Keren Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to countable objects. Distinct from acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Gequn Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Dirr 1907: 28, 137, 176; Shaumyan 1941: 153. According to Dirr's examples, applied to both countable and uncountable objects with polysemy: 'many / much / very': "many houses", "much money", "a very big house". It is noted [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233], however, that pːara is applied only to countable objects, whereas for 'much (uncountable obj.)' the inherited form acʼuna is used.
Fite Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to countable objects. Distinct from the inherited acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Aghul (proper):pːara-1
Suleymanov 2003: 141; Shaumyan 1941: 153. Applied to countable objects. Polysemy: 'many / very'. Distinct from inherited acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 134 sub mič].
AGX_NOTES:
Initial pː- in pːara points to a non-inherited form; apparently a loanword of Iranian origin. A Wanderwort in this region.
The form acʼina ~ acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' is the past participle from the verb acʼ-i- ~ acʼ-a- 'to fill (intrans.)' (see the entry 'full').
Northern Tabasaran:aχˤ=čʼʷˈa5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
Loanword in the Khanag subdialect: gizˈaf with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Uslar 1979: 643, 997; Dirr 1905: 45, 160, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: gizˈaf {гизаф} 'many, much, very' [Genko 2005: 37].
Southern Tabasaran:aχˤu=čʼʷˈiʔ5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
Loanword in the Khiv subdialect: gizˈaf {гизаф} with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Genko 2005: 37]. The second Khiv term is the inherited ˈacʼ-nu {ацIну} 'many' or 'much' [Genko 2005: 21] - a participle from acʼ- 'to fill'. Difference between gizˈaf and ˈacʼ-nu is unknown.
The same loanword in Literary Tabasaran: gizˈaf {гизаф} with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 99, 429].
TAB_NOTES:
Dyubek aχˤ-čʼʷˈa and Kondik aχˤu-čʼʷˈiʔ contain the adjective aχˤ- 'big' q.v., whereas the second element is apparently the substantive 'heap', attested as Northern (Dyubek) čʼʷˈeʔ-e 'heap, hill' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 193], Southern (Khiv) čʼʷeʔ {чъеъ} 'heap, pile' [Genko 2005: 183], - i.e. 'many' as 'a large heap'. Formally, this expression should be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'many'. Another inherited form is Khiv ˈacʼ-nu (literally 'filled'), but its exact meaning - 'many' or 'much' - is unknown. In most dialects the inherited terms were superseded with the loanword gizaf, borrowed from Persian gizaːf 'very much, innumerable, extreme'. In [Magometov 1965: 330], gizaf is quoted as the main Tabasaran word for 'many'.
Gyune Lezgi:gizˈaf-1
Uslar 1896: 379, 617. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'. Borrowed from Persian gizaːf 'very much, innumerable, extreme'.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: gzaf {гзаф} 'many / much / very' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 86; Gadzhiev 1950: 363; Haspelmath 1993: 253, 489, 522].
Another loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut pːarˈa 'many' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233] (applied to both countable and uncountable objects). The form is also attested in some other Lezgian languages; probably of Iranian origin.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔaχˤɨ-3
NCED: 511. Distribution: This word is quite prone to borrowing among Lezgian lects. The Proto-Lezgian term cannot be reconstructed with certainty. The best candidate is *ʔaχˤɨ- [NCED: 511], which means 'many' in Tsakhur and 'to be enough' in one of the outliers, Archi (class=aχˤ); it is also proposed in [NCED] that Budukh läħ-ki 'many' contains the same root, but the origin of initial l- is unclear. In Tsakhur, Tabasaran, non-Koshan Aghul, this root forms the adjective 'big' q.v. - it seems, however, to be a late areal innovation: 'many' > 'big'.
The second candidate, which is actually not significantly weaker than the first one, is *l[a]wχ- [NCED: 754]. It means 'many' in Archi (although it is not the most basic expression for this meaning) and 'to a large extent' in Lezgi. Both competing roots, *ʔaχˤɨ- and *l[a]wχ-, possess external North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'many'.
In Tabasaran, 'many' is expressed analytically as 'a large heap'. Additionally, in Khiv Tabasaran, the participle from the verb 'to be full' (*hˤacʼɨ-) can be used for 'many'.
A morphologically unclear form nˈaːqʼukan 'many' (with vowel fluctuation) occurs in Archi (cf. the etymological proposal in [NCED: 594]). Caucasian Albanian avel 'many' is, likewise, unclear etymologically.
In some lects, 'many' is expressed with words that look like loanwords, although the source of borrowing has not been identified (Iranian?): Udi gele ~ gölö (cf., however, its etymology proposed in [NCED: 410]), Kryts, Aghul parä ~ pːara, Rutul bala ~ balä.
In Kryts, Tabasaran, Lezgi, only loanwords of Azerbaijani-Persian origin are attested.
Distinct from various specific terms like menteš {ментеш} 'meat of abdomen' [Meylanova 1984: 108], čʼil {чIил} 'dried meat' [Meylanova 1984: 158] and so on.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 314, 356; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 303. Ablaut paradigm: yak [abs.] / yigː-ɨ- [obl.]. Note the gemination of -gː- - probably an archaism, rather than the influence of the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Suleymanov 2003: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 147. In [Shaumyan 1941], erroneously transcribed as yakʼ.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Kurag yakː 'meat' [Shaumyan 1941: 147; Magometov 1970: 206 sentences 11-12] (the Tsirkhe form is erroneously transcribed as yakʼ in [Shaumyan 1941]).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yakː 'meat' [Uslar 1979: 745, 998; Dirr 1905: 178, 234]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yakː {якк} 'meat' [Genko 2005: 199].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yikː {йикк} 'meat' [Genko 2005: 79]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yikː {йикк} 'meat' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185].
The same in Literary Lezgi: yak [abs.] / yakʼ-ˈu- [obl.] {як} 'meat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 402; Gadzhiev 1950: 373; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yak [abs.] / yakː-ˈɨ- [obl.] 'meat' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121].
Proto-Lezgian:*yaƛʼː1
NCED: 945. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'meat' in all the lects, except for Tsakhur, where čurV 'meat' may originate from 'a k. of meat (e.g., beef)', if the comparison with Udi čur 'cow' is reliable [LEDb: #197] (without further etymology).
Replacements: {'beef, meat of cow' > 'meat'(?)} (Tsakhur).
Common Udi *χaš 'light; moon; month'. As suggested by the attested polysemy, the Udi term for 'moon' was derived from 'light' (derivation 'light' > 'moon' is typologically common, whereas vice versa is odd). Caucasian Albanian data confirm this solution. Note, however, that Caucasian Albanian-Udi *χaš 'light' lacks any etymology.
Alternately, it is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 27 f., 333] that χaš 'moon' is etymologically unrelated to χaš 'light' and represents a phonetic variant of Udi χač 'cross' (< Armenian χačʰ 'cross'). According to Schulze's idea, an old (unattested) Udi term for 'moon / Moon-god' was superseded by a new term for 'cross' (a symbol of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity) in the course of Christianization. Indeed, in many traditions around the world the words for 'sun' and 'moon' are syncretized with names of the Sun and Moon deities, and therefore these terms are potentially subject to replacement with loanwords, as the local cult changes. However, this hypothesis is currently refuted by Caucasian Albanian data. It should be noted that, pace [Schulze 2001], such modern Udi words as χaš-desun 'to be christened', χaš-tːal 'priest' etc. do not confirm that χaš could mean 'cross' or 'Christ', but represent the same semantics of 'light' (as plausibly pointed out in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-10], these words were created under the influence of the corresponding Georgian Christian terminology).
Caucasian Albanian: χaš-in 'bright, shining / moon' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. Derived from the substantive χaš 'shine, light' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. The old Lezgian term for 'moon' is retained as buz-e 'month' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 889, 895; Ibragimov 1990: 19; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 98; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 52. Polysemy: 'moon / month / horseshoe' ('moon, month' and 'horseshoe' formally differ in the pl. form). As noted in [Ibragimov 1990] and [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], used with ablaut paradigm: waz [abs.] / wuz- [obl.] / wuz- [pl.]. According to [Kibrik et al. 1999], however, currently the ablaut paradigm was almost eliminated (wuz- is retained in the pl. form wuz-aːr 'horseshoes').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: waʒ with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Uslar 1979: 620, 997; Dirr 1905: 158, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: waʒ {вазз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Genko 2005: 31].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: waz {ваз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Genko 2005: 31]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: waz {ваз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 92].
The same in Literary Lezgi: warz [abs.] / wacː-rˈa- [obl.] / warcː-ˈar [pl.] {варз} 'moon / month' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 72; Gadzhiev 1950: 341; Haspelmath 1993: 510, 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut warz [abs.] / waz-rˈa- [obl.] / warcː-ˈar [pl.] 'moon' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198].
Medial -r- in the absolutive form warz (warʒ) is etymologically unclear. As proposed in [NCED: 1044], warz could represent the old oblique stem (with the metathesis *cː-r > r-cː). It should be noted that morphophonologically, the synchronic Lezgi oblique stem wacː-ra- can be analyzed as {warcː-ra-} with regular simplification rCr > Cr [Haspelmath 1993: 63].
Proto-Lezgian:*wacː2
NCED: 1044. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'moon' in all the lects, except for Caucasian Albanian-Udi, where *wacː was lost, superseded with the root for 'light, shine; bright, shining' (the latter, however, lacks any etymology).
Common Udi *bur-uχ, with a transparent fossilized plural suffix -uχ. As proposed in [NCED: 1053] and now proven by Caucasian Albanian data, -ur- is, in fact, to be analyzed as another plural suffix, thus *b(u)-ur-uχ (for the synchronic Udi plural in -ur-uχ, which is normally restricted to monosyllabic roots, see [Schulze 2005: 151 f. (3.2.5.4 #2)].
Caucasian Albanian: bu 'mountain, hill' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11].
Distinct from sob 'alpine pasture used in winter' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 314; Mikailov 1967: 197; Dirr 1908: 181] (according to [Chumakina et al. 2007], the modern meaning is 'field (used as pasture or kept for hay making) that belongs to one family').
Distinct from mocˈor 'alpine pasture used in summer' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 280] (in [Chumakina et al. 2007] apparently incorrectly transcribed as mocːˈor), although this is glossed as 'mountain; alpine pasture used in summer' in [Mikailov 1967: 193] and [Dirr 1908: 168].
Distinct from yˈarχˤi 'pass in mountains, head of mountain pass' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 253], although this is glossed simply as 'mountain' in [Dirr 1908: 155].
Distinct from qˤun 'shoulder; protruding part of mountain' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 300]; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32], this term is incorrectly quoted as qün ~ qˤun {хъуьн ~ хъIун} 'mountain' (the former variant is a corrupted spelling for {хъуън} = qˤun).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 887, 892; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 319. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] the variant suwa {сува} is also quoted (the same in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32]).
A second term for 'mountain' is ban 'mountain; alpine pasture' [Dirr 1912: 14, 17, 18, 84, 103, 124, 188; Ibragimov 1978: 118; Makhmudova 2001: 15, 73, 80, 82, 192; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32]. According to Dirr's and Makhmudova's example, both words were equally frequent in the early 20th century, but the inherited sɨw has been almost superseded by ban in the modern language.
The word ban, attested in Mukhad & Ixrek, looks like a recent loanword, although the source has not been identified (cf. Talysh band 'mountain, hill'; final clusters such as -NT are prohibited in Rutul).
Cf. also two terms with more specific meanings: Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad) bäˤl {баьIл} 'rock, cliff', dahar {дагьар} 'rock, cliff; precipice' [Ibragimov 1978: 136]; Muxrek bäl {баьл} 'rock, cliff' [Ibragimov 1978: 188]; Khnov dahar {дагьар} 'rock, cliff' [Ibragimov 1978: 293] (dahar is a loanword, see notes on Alyk Kryts 'stone').
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Kurag, Khpyuk su, suw- 'mountain' [Shaumyan 1941: 162; Magometov 1970: 155, 223 strophe III].
AGX_NOTES:
It is proposed in [NCED: 1053] that the transcription of the Koshan (Burshag) form sːu with tense sː is a misspelling in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. This is indeed likely from the etymological point of view, but it should be noted that the tenseness of sː is suspiciously confirmed by Dirr's transcription of archaic Gequn, and see also the Tabasaran form sːiw.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: siw 'mountain' [Uslar 1979: 907, 992; Dirr 1905: 204, 226].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: siw {сив} 'mountain' [Genko 2005: 139]. The same in the Kurikh subdialect: sːiw {ссив} 'mountain' [Genko 2005: 222].
Differently in the Khiv subdialect, where two terms are opposed: siw {сив} 'mountain (not big); upland' [Genko 2005: 139]; distinct from Khiv daʁ {дагъ} 'big mountain' [Genko 2005: 57], borrowed from Azerbaijani daɣ 'mountain'.
Only the loanword is represented in Literary Tabasaran: daʁ {дагъ} 'mountain' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 138].
TAB_NOTES:
Note sporadic tense sː in Northern Tabasaran, as well as the Southern (Kondik) ergative siw-ˈi - in the case of the etymological lax sibilant, one could rather expect the devoiced vowel in **si̥w-ˈi (on the other hand, it is natural to suppose that **si̥w-ˈi was levelled to siw-ˈi after the regular absolutive form siw). Cf. also the tense sː in some Aghul forms (q.v.).
Gyune Lezgi:daʁ-1
Uslar 1896: 400, 609. Borrowed from Azerbaijani daɣ 'mountain'.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: daʁ {дагъ} 'mountain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 105; Gadzhiev 1950: 146; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 523]. This is the default term for 'mountain' in the modern language. Distinct from the inherited suw {сув} 'mountain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 297; Haspelmath 1993: 506, 523], specified by Talibov & Gadzhiev as "poetic".
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut daʁ 'mountain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191]. Distinct from the inherited Khlyut term sɨw 'alpine pasture used in summer' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191].
Proto-Lezgian:*sɨwa1
NCED: 1053. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'mountain' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in most of Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, archaic Lezgi). Shifted to the meaning 'alpine pasture used in winter' in Archi, but was lost without a trace in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
In Archi, the meaning 'mountain' is expressed with *muhˤVl (~ -ʔ-) [NCED: 834] (lost in the rest of languages), which actually possesses better external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'mountain' than *sɨwa, but the distribution suggests that the Archi meaning is innovative.
In Kryts, the old word was superseded with *pːaˤl(a) (~ -lː-) [NCED: 292], whose original meaning is unclear: its only Rutul cognate means 'rock, cliff'.
In many Nuclear Lezgian lects the inherited forms for 'mountain' are superseded with loanwords of Azerbaijani or, possibly, Iranian origin: Alyk Kryts, Budukh, Rutul dialects, Tabasaran dialects, Lezgi.
Replacements: {'mountain' > 'alpine pasture used in winter'} (Archi, Akhty Lezgi).
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular; with metathesis, > *wɨsa in Caucasian Albanian-Udi; reflexes of tense *sː in Aghul and Tabasaran are unclear.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *sɨwä-.
Gukasyan 1974: 114; Fähnrich 1999: 35; Mobili 2010: 159; Schiefner 1863: 93; Schulze 2001: 337; Starchevskiy 1891: 506. In [Fähnrich 1999: 13, 35] two additional corrupted variants are quoted: čˤomoχ ~ žomoχ. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] the stem variant žˤomo is also attested, used synonymously with žˤomo-χ (e.g., Mt. 12.34 "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth (žˤomo-n) speaks", etc.). In [Schulze 2001: 337] Bežanovs' žˤomo is interpreted as 'lip', a glossing that is supported neither by Nidzh data (cf. Nidzh plain žˤomo 'mouth') nor by textual evidence - there are no words for 'lip' in the canonical Russian Gospel text, from which Bežanovs' text was translated. The normal word for 'lip(s)' is Nidzh ǯiǯir, Vartashen ǯeǯer [Gukasyan 1974: 245] (etymologically obscure, somewhat resembling Georgian dial. tʼutʼur-i 'lips', Laz tʼimtʼvir-i ~ tʼintʼvir-i 'lips').
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *žˤomo. The final -χ in the Vartashen form is the common plural suffix -uχ.
Caucasian Albanian: ǯˤumo-q ~ ǯˤumu-q [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-23]. The final -q is the common plural suffix -uq.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 316; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 197; Mikailov 1967: 198; Dirr 1908: 180, 220. Polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food) / edge, end / bank, shore' (the meanings 'mouth' and 'edge; bank' are opposed in oblique forms within the paradigm and, therefore, synchronically represent two different lexemes). Paradigm for the meaning 'mouth': sːob [abs.] / sːˈob-li [erg.] / sːebˈe [loc.]; the locative forms with the meanings 'edge' and 'bank' are regular: sːˈob-li-t or sːˈob-tːa.
Distinct from kʼuf {кIуф} 'mouth (of animal)', which can sometimes be applied to a human (polysemy: 'mouth of animal / toe of shoes / kiss') [Meylanova 1984: 99].
Distinct from siw {сив} with polysemy 'end, point / fast (abstinence from food)' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 314] (the meaning 'fast' points to the old semantics of 'mouth').
As follows from Dirr’s data, however, the archaic Mikik Tsakhur word for 'mouth' was siw. This was glossed as 'mouth' by R. von Erckert (apud [Dirr 1913: 201]) in the late 19th century, whereas in the early 20th century, siw 'mouth' was retained in the expression for 'fast (abstinence from food)' [Dirr 1913: 199]. According to [Dirr 1913: 201], the synchronic meaning of Mikik siw was 'end, edge' already in the early 20th century.
It is very likely that the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'mouth' was siw (the development 'mouth' > 'fast' is frequent in Lezgian), which has been recently superseded with ɣal under the influence on the part of Rutul (the original Tsakhur meaning of ɣal is unclear).
Cf. the secondary pharyngealization in Borch-Khnov ɣäˤl ~ yäˤl 'mouth' [Ibragimov 1978: 231]; in [Ibragimov 1978: 237, 282], however, this word is quoted simply as yäl.
The word ɣal can be formally reconstructed as the Proto-Rutul term for 'mouth', but the attested Ixrek form siw 'fast' should point that in Pre-Proto-Rutul siw meant 'mouth'. It is also possible that siw 'mouth' is attested in the word for 'face': Mukhad xe-su-m 'face' [Dirr 1912: 141], Ixrek xe-sɨ-m 'face' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 282], if analyze it as a compressed compound *xex-sɨ(w)-m, literally 'nose' (xex) + 'mouth' (thus [NCED: 584]), although the postulated suffix -m seems unclear.
The Keren (Richa) form sib with b is somewhat strange, because it should point to Proto-Aghul *b rather than *w (for the behaviour of Proto-Aghul *b in modern dialects see notes on 'to go').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ušʷ 'mouth' [Uslar 1979: 936, 1004; Dirr 1905: 211, 241] (note Uslar's plural form ušːʷ-ˈar with tense šːʷ). This word is opposed to Khanag mučʼmˈučʼ 'mouth' [Uslar 1979: 864, 1004; Dirr 1905: 197, 241]; according to Uslar' examples, mučʼmˈučʼ does not denote the anatomic 'mouth' per se, but rather 'mouth' as an organ of speech: "His mučʼmučʼ is very loquacious", "He got in trouble due to his mučʼmučʼ", "What comes from one's mučʼmˈučʼ, hits one in the forehead", etc.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ušʷ {ушв} 'mouth' [Genko 2005: 158] (erg. ušʷ-unˈu, but note the plural form ušːʷ-ˈar {ушшвар} with tense šːʷ). This basic term is opposed to Khyuryuk mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'mounth' [Genko 2005: 123], which is probably specified by Genko as a "rude word", although theoretically this stylistic gloss may concern only the corresponding Khiv form, for which see below.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ušʷ {ушв} with polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food)' [Genko 2005: 158]. This basic term is opposed to Khiv mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'mouth' [Genko 2005: 123], which is specified by Genko as a "rude word".
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ušʷ {ушв} with polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 302]. Distinct from the literary mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'lip (of animal)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 235].
TAB_NOTES:
The default term for all dialects is ušʷ (ušːʷ-, užʷ-u). As for the reduplicated mučʼ-mučʼ, it seems that its original meaning was plural: 'lips (of animal)' ← mučʼ *'lip (of animal)'. In Literary Tabasaran mučʼ-mučʼ acquired the singular semantic 'lip (of animal)', whereas the plain form mučʼ was retained in the Northern Tabasaran (Khanag, Khyuryuk) expression mučʼ apʼ- 'to kiss', literally 'to make mučʼ' [Dirr 1905: 197; Genko 2005: 123]. Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) mučʼ-mučʼ as a rude term for 'mouth' fits such a scenario. The most interesting semantic development of mučʼ-mučʼ is observed in Khanag: 'mouth as an organ of speech'.
It should be noted that mučʼ cannot be postulated as the basic Proto-Tabasaran term for '(human) lip', since the Proto-Tabasaran word with this meaning originates from Proto-Lezgian *kʼʷentʼ 'lip' [NCED: 733] > Northern Tabasaran (Dyubek) kʼˈantʼ-a 'lip', Southern Tabasaran (Kondik) kʼʷantʼ 'lip' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14].
The same in Literary Lezgi: siw {сив} 'mouth' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 292; Gadzhiev 1950: 734; Haspelmath 1993: 506, 523]. This is the default term for 'human mouth' in Literary Lezgi, distinct from kʼuf {кIуф} 'mouth (of human and animal), beak, snout' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 218; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 523], whose original meaning was apparently 'mouth of animal' or rather 'beak' (cf. the Akhty data below).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut siw 'mouth' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14]. Distinct from Khlyut kʼɨf 'beak' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13].
Proto-Lezgian:*sːɨw2
NCED: 584. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'mouth' in Archi, on the one hand, and in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), West Lezgian (Proto-Tsakhur and probably Proto-Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi).
In Archi, *sːɨw means 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food) / edge, end / bank, shore'; the synchronic regular paradigm of the meanings 'edge; bank' could imply that these meanings are recent Archi introductions. Similarly, this root shifted to the meaning 'edge, end' in Udi (oˤš) as well as in modern Tsakhur (siw). In modern West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), *sːɨw is also retained with the meaning 'fast (abstinence from food)' and perhaps in the expression for 'face' (< 'nose' + 'mouth').
In modern West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the basic term for 'mouth' is expressed with *ƛːal [NCED: 589], whose original meaning is unclear, because this root is not attested in the rest of Lezgian. It must be noted that such a replacement does not seem to be a Proto-West Lezgian feature, but rather represents an areal Rutul-induced introduction. The old root *sːɨw has also survived in Tsakhur and Rutul, see above.
In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the old root was superseded with *čːʷVm- [NCED: 1103], modified with the fossilized plural suffix; thus, its original meaning could indeed be something like 'lip' or even 'edge'. This root seems to have been lost in the rest of Lezgian, although it is possible that Caucasian Albanian ǯˤumo-, Udi žˤomo- 'mouth' are somehow related to Proto-Tabasaran mučʼ 'animal lip(?)' (for which see notes on 'mouth') via metathesis; the affricate correspondence is, however, irregular
In Tabasaran and Lezgi dialects, the basic word for 'mouth' tends to be superseded with certain vulgar forms with the original meaning 'animal lip' or 'beak'.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cːur 'name' [Uslar 1979: 959, 995; Dirr 1905: 216, 230]. The same in other subdialects:Khyuryuk, Kumi cːur {ццур}, Chuvek čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Genko 2005: 176, 183].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv ǯʷur ~ cur ~ čːʷur {жъур, цур, ччвур}, Chara žʷur {жвур}, Tinit zur ~ čʷur {зур, чвур}, Turag zur {зур}, Khoredzh uǯʷˈur {ужъур}, Zildik čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Genko 2005: 69, 70, 72, 151, 176, 183]. The variability of the Khiv and Tinit forms is obviously due to Genko's (or his editor M. E. Alekseev's) errors - inaccurate dialect specifications of the entries, but the real picture is undiscoverable.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 340].
1) ozan {озан} 'neck' [Gukasyan 1974: 182; Schulze 2001: 305]; glossed as 'back of the head, back of the neck' ('Nacken') in [Fähnrich 1999: 25; Schiefner 1863: 78] and as 'back (anatomical)' (in fact, contextually 'shoulders'!) in [Dirr 1903: 19].
2) qːoqː {къокъ} 'neck' [Fähnrich 1999: 28; Dirr 1903: 16, 23; Schiefner 1863: 80; Starchevskiy 1891: 508]; glossed as 'throat' [Gukasyan 1974: 159] and 'neck, throat' in [Schulze 2001: 314].
In fact, e.g., in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], both terms function as virtual synonyms for 'neck' and may occur in identical context (like "it would be better for him that a huge millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be sunk in the depths of the sea").
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ozan 'neck', opposed to *qːoqː 'throat'. It is also possible that there was no single term for 'neck' in Proto-Udi, and this lexical opposition should be reconstructed as *ozan 'back part of the neck' vs. *qːoqː 'front part of the neck'.
Alternatively, because Udi *ozan lacks any etymology, one can treat this as a late borrowing from an unknown source and reconstruct *qːoqː as the indigenous Udi term for 'neck; throat'. It must be noted that the Caucasian Albanian verb qʼoqʼ-esun 'to ingest, swallow, devour' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-31] points rather to the meaning 'throat' for Udi qːoqː.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290, 389; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201; Mikailov 1967: 196; Dirr 1908: 173, 226. The second element is lˈekːi 'bone' q.v.; the first one could be the "Proto-Archi" term for 'neck', cf. the substantive ˈoˤčʼi 'collar' and the locative adverb ˈoˤčʼay 'round the neck' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290].
Kryts (proper):gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Alyk Kryts:gardan-1
Authier 2009: 155, 379. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Budukh:gǝrdǝn {гардан}-1
Meylanova 1984: 35, 251; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:gardan {гардан}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 873, 901; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 30 sub aytʼalas, 87 sub birčak].
A second candidate is the inherited term χˤow 'neck; collar' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 371], but the dialectal source of the meaning 'neck' is unknown.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: gardan [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18].
Mikik Tsakhur:gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
In [Dirr 1913: 141, 243], 'neck' is glossed as another loanword: boʁaz < Azerbaijani boɣaz 'throat'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201], 'neck' is glossed as another loanword: buʁaz {бугъаз} < Azerbaijani boɣaz 'throat'.
TKR_NOTES:
The term gardan was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
According to [Makhmudova 2001: 22], gardan is applied to humans, whereas the word for 'animal's neck' is utum-ɨy. The latter corresponds to Ixrek Rutul utum-ay 'nape, back of the neck (said of humans)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 257] and Borch-Khnov Rutul utum-ay 'person with hunchback' [Ibragimov 1978: 282] ← Borch-Khnov Rutul utum 'hump, kyphosis'. The origin of utum is unclear.
Suleymanov 2003: 48; Shaumyan 1941: 189. The same loanword in the Duldug subdialects: gardan 'neck' [Shaumyan 1941: 189].
AGX_NOTES:
The term gardan was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Northern Tabasaran:gardˈan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: ɣardˈan 'neck' [Uslar 1979: 654, 1010; Dirr 1905: 162, 247]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ɣardˈan {ггардан} 'neck' [Genko 2005: 40].
Southern Tabasaran:gardˈan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: gardˈan {гардан} 'neck' [Genko 2005: 36]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: gardˈan {гардан} 'neck' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 96].
TAB_NOTES:
The term gardan (ɣardan) was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Gyune Lezgi:gardˈan-1
Uslar 1896: 374, 639. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'. Distinct from the inherited Gyune word χew with polysemy: 'nape, back of the neck (said of animals) / collar' [Uslar 1896: 574]. Distinct from Gyune qʼam 'nape (said of human)' [Uslar 1896: 522].
The basic Literary Lezgi term for 'neck' is the loanword gardˈan {гардан} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 82; Gadzhiev 1950: 940; Haspelmath 1993: 488, 523]. Distinct from the inherited literary word χew {хев}, which is glossed as 'neck, nape; collar' in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 343] and as 'neck; collar' in [Haspelmath 1993: 512, 523]. It is unclear whether χew can be applied to humans or only to animals, and whether its actual meaning is 'neck (in general)' or just 'back of the neck', cf. the only example in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966]: "To get callosities on the neck (said of draft animals)". Distinct from literary qʼam {кьам} 'nape (said of human)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 197].
Two synonymous words for 'neck' are quoted for the Khlyut subdialect of the Akhty dialect in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18]: inherited qʼam and borrowed gardˈan. But for the Qurush dialect of the same Samur group the word χew with polysemy: 'neck / collar' is documented in [Ganieva 2008: 224].
The available data are too scant for a Proto-Lezgi reconstruction. The attested inherited terms are χew and qʼam; both of them demonstrate fluctuation between 'neck' and 'nape'.
Proto-Lezgian:*χˤaw4
NCED: 894. Distribution: The Proto-Lezgian term for 'neck' cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
Provisionally, we choose *χˤaw [NCED: 894]. This root means 'collar' in West Lezgian (Rutul, Tsakhur) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), although in Tsakhur and Lezgi dialects it is glossed with the additional meaning 'neck' (the default term for 'neck' is a loanword in these dialects).
Other candidates are:
1) Udi ozan 'neck', which could be a genitive formation from the Lezgian root *ʔoc:- (?) [LEDb: #201], without further etymology.
2) Archi *Hočʼ- [LEDb: #290], retained in the noun 'collar' and the adverb 'round the neck', whereas the synchronic expression for 'neck' is the compound *Hočʼ- + 'bone'. This root, however, lacks any etymology.
In Nuclear Lezgian, the default words for 'neck' represent borrowings from Persian or Azerbaijani.
The fact that loanwords are mostly used for such a basic term as 'neck' (Nuclear Lezgi, Udi) could indicate that there was no generic word for 'neck' in Proto-Lezgian as well as Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, but that there were two opposed terms: 'front part of neck' and 'back part of neck'. The situation can be the same as in the case of 'bird' q.v., where the generic term 'small/middle bird' and several names of specific large birds are reconstructible for Proto-Lezgian, whereas in modern lects the recently introduced concept 'bird (in general)' is expressed by Azerbaijani or Iranian loanwords.
If so, Archi *Hočʼ- could originally have meant 'front part of neck' in Proto-Archi with a later compound 'front part of neck + bone' for generic 'neck'; a similar opposition can be proposed for Udi (see notes on Udi 'neck'); and finally, *χˤaw should be reconstructed as 'collar' in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian (with secondary sporadic polysemy 'collar / neck' in some lects).
Gukasyan 1974: 128; Mobili 2010: 154; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Dirr 1903: 42; Schiefner 1863: 77; Starchevskiy 1891: 494. Polysemy: 'new / fresh'. Resemblance to Azerbaijani yeni 'new' is apparently accidental. As in Nidzh, 'new' can also be expressed by the Azerbaijani loanword täzä [Fähnrich 1999: 31; Schulze 2001: 324].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ini.
Caucasian Albanian: The attributive term is actually unattested. The old Lezgian root is known from the compound verb enʸi-bat-k-esun 'to be renewed' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-15], literally 'to turn new' with the verb bat-k-esun 'to turn around, return' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 276, 369; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 622; Mikailov 1967: 194; Dirr 1908: 166, 215. In [Mikailov 1967: 194] quoted as mǝcʼa-tːu-class. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 622], a corrupted variant macʼa-dːu-class is also given. Polysemy: 'new, fresh / bridegroom, bride'. Regular participle from the stative verb macʼˈa 'to be new, fresh'. In [Chumakina 2009] unjustifiedly marked as "probably borrowed", but no source is quoted.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cʼeyˈi with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Uslar 1979: 960, 999] (in [Dirr 1905: 216], glossed only as 'fresh'). The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: cʼeyˈi {цIейи} with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Genko 2005: 177].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: cʼeyˈi ~ cʼiyˈi {цIейи, цIийи} with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Genko 2005: 177, 178]; a close synonym to the aforementioned inherited term is Khiv tazˈa {таза} 'fresh; new' [Genko 2005: 141], borrowed from Azerbaijani täzä 'new; fresh'.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: inherited cʼiyˈi {цIийи} 'new' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 333] and borrowed tazˈa {таза} 'fresh; new' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 275].
The same in Literary Lezgi: cʼiyˈi {цIийи} 'new' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 362; Gadzhiev 1950: 426; Haspelmath 1993: 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut cʼiyˈi 'new' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
Proto-Lezgian:*cʼen-class-ä-1
NCED: 357. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian stems, retained with the basic meaning in almost all of the lects. In Nidzh Udi, Alyk Kryts, Budukh, superseded with the Azerbaijani loanword.
Replacements: {'new' > 'fresh'} (Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular. We follow [NCED] and explain the Udi and Nuclear Lezgian forms as *cʼen-y-ä- (with fossilized -y-), whereas the Archi form goes back to *cʼen-w-ä- (with further metathesis).
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be new'.
Gukasyan 1974: 249; Mobili 2010: 258; Fähnrich 1999: 30; Dirr 1903: 14, 95, 96; Schiefner 1863: 91; Schulze 2001: 321; Starchevskiy 1891: 504. In [Fähnrich 1999: 30] the corrupted variant šˤu is also quoted. Distinct from adverbial išo-un 'at night' [Schulze 2001: 287; Schiefner 1863: 77; Dirr 1903: 81] (in [Fähnrich 1999: 18] a corrupted form išˤo-un); note that in [Gukasyan 1974: 130, 216; Mobili 2010: 156] išo {ишо} is incorrectly glossed simply as 'night'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *šu ~ *šü 'night', *išo 'at night' (both words are etymologically related). In the light of Lezgian etymology, resemblance to Judeo-Tat šäv 'night', Persian šab 'night' is accidental.
Caucasian Albanian: šu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-33].
In [Dirr 1912: 162], the word naχˤ is also glossed as 'evening, night', but apparently the exact meaning of naχˤ is just 'evening', thus in [Ibragimov 1978: 19, 27, 118, 122].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two parallel absolutive forms are quoted: wɨš and huš. The rest of the paradigm is suppletive: wɨš-i-r [erg.] / huš-bɨr [abs. pl.] / wɨš-i-mɨ-r [erg. pl.]. It seems that huš- represents a borrowing from the neighboring Borch-Khnov dialect.
RUT_NOTES:
In the Borch-Khnov dialect 'night' has the phonetic shape huš [Makhmudova 2001: 11].
All attested phonetic shapes - wɨš, yüš, huš - reflect the same proto-form.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211; Genko 2005: 79. In [Genko 2005], erroneously quoted as yižʷ-ˈi.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yišːʷ 'night' [Uslar 1979: 756, 999; Dirr 1905: 180, 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yišːʷ {йишшв} 'night' [Genko 2005: 81].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yišʷ {йишв} 'night' [Genko 2005: 81]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yišʷ {йишв} 'night' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 186].
TAB_NOTES:
Note the retention of tense fricative šːʷ in the Northern subdialects.
Regular paradigm in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yif 'night' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211].
For the phonetics cf. Nyutyug (subdialect of the Yarki dialect < Kyuri group) yüx [abs.] / üxü- ~ xü- [obl.] 'night' [Meylanova 1964: 75, 109], Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect < Samur group) iwi- [obl.] 'night' [Meylanova 1964: 247].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʡišːʷ1
NCED: 524. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained with the basic meaning in all the languages except for Tsakhur.
In Tsakhur, superseded with *χːˤamː /*χːˤanː [LEDb: #211], whose original meaning is likely to have been 'evening' (cf. 'evening' in Aghul & Tabasaran, and 'dimming of eye-sight' in Archi).
Replacements: {'evening' > 'night'} (Tsakhur).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for assimilative delabialization and voicing in Budukh. In some lects, the metathesized variant *šːʷi(ʡ) is attested within the paradigm (Udi šu ~ šü, Archi adverb šːʷi 'at night', perhaps Lezgi oblique f- ~ xü-).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *ʡišːʷa-.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 281, 370; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 195; Mikailov 1967: 194; Dirr 1908: 169, 215. Polysemy: 'nose / beak / toe of footwear / mountain peak, crest' (the latter meaning is opposed to others in some forms within the paradigm). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 195], the variant mup {муп} is also quoted; this is an erroneous transmission of Cyrillic cursive handwriting.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13. In [Dirr 1913], 'nose' is quoted as qow. The relationship between quš and qow is unclear; for safety, we prefer to treat them as synonyms.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qˤaq 'nose' [Uslar 1979: 806, 999; Dirr 1905: 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qˤaq {хъяхъ} 'nose' [Genko 2005: 174].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv qʷˤaqʷ {хъюаьхъв}, Tinit qˤaq {хъяхъ} 'nose' [Genko 2005: 174]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qˤuq {хъюхъ} 'nose' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 329].
TAB_NOTES:
Note various dialectal assimilative/dissimilative processes in the sequence *qʷ-qʷ.
The same in Literary Lezgi: ner {нер} 'nose' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 252; Gadzhiev 1950: 427; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 523].
In the Akhty dialect: Khlyut ilˈer 'nose' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13], Khuryug ler ~ iler 'nose' [Meylanova 1964: 287]. It must be noted that for the Khuryug subdialect of Akhty, the form tʼiškʼapʼilar 'nose' is also quoted in [Meylanova 1964: 314] - an unclear compound, whose first element is tʼiš = literary tʼiš 'muzzle, snout'.
As proposed in [NCED: 826], both Gyune ner and Akhty (i)ler are related, representing the plural formation *il-er with the fossilized exponent -Vr. The shift l > n in Gyune n-er is irregular, although there are a few parallel cases of such a development.
Proto-Lezgian:*muʔel3
NCED: 825. Distribution: The word is fairly unstable in Lezgian. Three stems are equivalent candidates from the distributive point of view.
1) *muʔel [NCED: 825]. This stem means 'nose' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and in Lezgi. Formally, this is at least the Proto-Nuclear root for 'nose'. It shifted to 'beak' in Aghul, whereas in one of the outliers - Archi - it denotes 'snot'. We choose *muʔel as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'nose' because of its North Caucasian cognates with the same semantics.
2) *mu(l)čː [NCED: 816]. This root is retained only in Archi with polysemy: 'nose / beak / toe of footwear / mountain peak, crest'. External North Caucasian comparison points to the meaning 'edge, tip'. The Proto-Archi development could be either 'edge, tip' > 'nose' > other attested meanings or 'peak' > 'nose'.
3) In Udi, a compound is used in the meaning 'nose'; it could be analyzed as *wV(r)χ-mVʁ (~ pː-) 'sheep's tail' (thus [NCED: 1045]).
Some local replacements of *muʔel took place in individual Nuclear Lezgian lects.
In Aghul and Tabasaran, 'nose' is expressed by *qʷˤaqʷ(a) [NCED: 894]; this stem means 'cheek' in Lezgi, but was lost in the rest of languages; the exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of *qʷˤaqʷ(a) is unclear. It must be noted that in many Dargi languages, 'nose' is expressed by forms that are not only etymologically cognate with Lezgian *qʷˤaqʷ(a), but also fairly close phonetically to the Aghul-Tabasaran forms; thus, the meaning 'nose' could be an areal Dargwa-Aghul-Tabasaran isogloss, if not an early interdialectal borrowing (note that *qːʷˤanqː is apparently not the Proto-Dargi term for 'nose').
In Rutul, 'nose' is expressed with *ɬerɬ [NCED: 1061]; its Lezgian cognates as well as external North Caucasian comparison point out that the original Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ɬerɬ was 'snot' or 'saliva'.
In Tsakhur dialects, the etymologically obscure forms qow and quš 'nose' also occur.
Maisak 2008a: 133; Gukasyan 1974: 288; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 483. A verbal proclitic. Cf. the prohibitive proclitic ma- {ма-} [Maisak 2008a: 134] and the proclitic nu- {ну-} used with infinite forms [Maisak 2008a: 135].
Gukasyan 1974: 288; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 483; Dirr 1903: 75; Schiefner 1863: 29; Schulze 2001: 240. A verbal proclitic. Cf. the prohibitive proclitic ma- {ма-} and the negative proclitic for the future and optative nu, nut {ну, нут}.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *te-, a verbal proclitic.
Caucasian Albanian: nu- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-55]. A verbal proclitic, normally used with non-past finite forms. Distinct from the morpheme te (particle or proclitic), which is normally used as a negative copula or with verbs in the past tense [Gippert et al. 2008: II-55]. Distinct from the prohibitive proclitic ma- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-51]. A fourth, more marginal, negative morpheme is nu-t (apparently < nu + te) [Gippert et al. 2008: II-52].
Saadiev 1994: 425-427. Negation of assertion is expressed by the copula d-ä-class or by the simple prefix d-. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix m- [Saadiev 1994: 429].
Authier 2009: 149 ff. Negation of assertion is expressed by the copula d-a-class or by the simple prefix d-. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix m- [Authier 2009: 152].
Alekseev 1994: 280; Talibov 2007: 184, 229; Meylanova 1984: 197. Negation of assertion is expressed by the encliticized copula d-ǝ-class in finite forms and the prefix d-V- in infinite forms. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix mV- [Alekseev 1994: 279; Talibov 2007: 216].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 81-84; Ibragimov 1990: 131, 136; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 523. Negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix dʸ- ~ idʸ- or by the encliticized copula dʸe-š. The latter (analytic) patter is more frequent [Kibrik et al. 1999: 81]. The prohibitive marker is the prefix m- ~ im- [Kibrik et al. 1999: 84].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix dʸe- or by the encliticized copula dʸe-š; the prohibitive marker is the prefix mV- [Schulze 1997: 65].
Ibragimov 1990: 197. According to [Ibragimov 1990], negation of assertion can be expressed by the prefix dʸ- ~ idʸ- or by the copula dʸi-ʔ, whereas the prohibitive marker is the prefix m- ~ im-.
Dirr 1912: 91 ff.; Alekseev 1994a: 233 ff.; Makhmudova 2001: 146 ff. According to the aforementioned sources, negation of assertion is expressed by the encliticized copula -di-š in finite forms, whereas in non-finite forms (e.g., in adverbial participles) negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix ǯV-. In [Ibragimov 1978: 103], the Mukhad system is described in a similar way.
The prohibitive exponent is the prefix mV- [Alekseev 1994a: 234; Ibragimov 1978: 103; Makhmudova 2001: 146; Dirr 1912: 91].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 439. In [Ibragimov 1978: 214 ff.], no specific Ixrek peculiarities are described, that is, the Ixrek system of negations is identical to the Mukhad one: -di-š in finite forms, ǯV- in non-finite forms, mV- in the prohibitive. As noted in [Ibragimov 1978: 197], the prefixal morpheme ǯV- has two variants: ǯV- in the initial position, -čV- in the intervocalic position.
The system of Aghul negations is described in [Magometov 1970: 148 ff.; Suleymanov 1993: 141 f., 154; Tarlanov 1994: 237 f.; Shaumyan 1941: 109 ff.] with examples from various dialects. The verbal negation of assertion is expressed with the encliticized copula -da-wa / -da-ʔ/ -da or with the verbal prefix dV-. The verbal prefix mV- is the prohibitive exponent. All the aforementioned authors note no principal discrepancies between Aghul dialects.
Magometov 1965: 293. Verbal affix. After a vowel-final morpheme, the rhotacized variant -rVː- (< -da-) occurs [Magometov 1965: 295].
The same affix in the Khanag subdialect: da-r or simplified da, in the intervocalic position -rV- [Magometov 1965: 291, 295; Dirr 1905: 105 ff.]. The same affix in the Khyuryuk subdialect: da-r [Magometov 1965: 293 f.].
Magometov 1965: 292, 306. Verbal affix. This is actually a morpheme from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik form is unknown.
The same basic morpheme in Literary Tabasaran: dar [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 444; Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 69 ff.; Zhirkov 1948: 134 ff.].
TAB_NOTES:
The system of Tabasaran negations is described in [Magometov 1965: 290 ff.] with examples from various dialects. The verbal negation of assertion is expressed with the affix dar, harmonized dur / der / etc.(in Northern Tabasaran it mutates into rar or yar in some positions; final -r can get lost in some forms). Tabasaran dar is used as either a prefix or a suffix, depending on the grammatical form. This morpheme originally represents the cliticized negative copula da-r with the fossilized class exponent -r. In some participle forms the negative exponent is simply -di (with the dialectal variants -ǯi, -ir, -i) without the class suffix [Magometov 1965: 305].
In Southern Tabasaran, verbal stems, modified with certain prefixes, create the negated forms via reduplication of the prefix; this is a secondary analogical pattern [Magometov 1965: 301 f.].
The verbal affix (prefix or suffix) mV is the Common Tabasaran prohibitive exponent [Magometov 1965: 310 ff.].
Uslar 1896: 161. According to Uslar's sparse data, the Gyune system is very similar to the modern literary one: suffixal -č (or -či-r with the additional participle suffix -r) in finite forms, and prefixal tː(V)-, t(V)-, d(V)- in non-finite forms, see below for details. The distribution between tː- ~ t- ~ d- seems non-existent, with some verbs possessing parallel forms with two of the listed variants; the general system was apparently described during a period of restructuring (see [Uslar 1896: 177-178, 208-210] for the lists of examples). Nevertheless, some patterns can be observed, e.g., verbs with the root ejective consonant normally attach dV-.
In Literary Lezgi, the basic verbal negation is the suffix -č {ч} (or -či-r), which is used in finite indicative forms; the second negative exponent is the prefix tː(V)- {т}, restricted to participle, masdar and infinitive forms; see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 206 ff.; Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 53; Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 582 ff.; Haspelmath 1993: 5, 133, 135]. According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., a couple of verbs with the ejective root consonant attach the negative prefix d(V)- {д} in the literary language instead of common tː(V)- {т}, but actually, in natural speech the negative forms of these verbs are normally pronounced with tː(V)-. It should also be noted that the majority of verbs in Literary Lezgi possess analytic negated forms, derived with the help of cliticized negated auxiliary verbs.
All the dental prefixal exponents, listed above, apparently originate from the main Lezgian negation *tːV-. One can suppose that initially the Gyune variants tː(V)-, t(V)-, d(V)- were distributed according to the root consonant. As a parallel, cf. the Jaba dialect (Samur group), where two prefixes for non-finite forms coexist: tː(V)- and tʼ(V)-; according to examples in [Ganieva 2007: 131], tʼ(V)- is attached to the verbs with an ejective root consonant (e.g., acʼũ 'to fill' - tʼ=acʼũ 'not to fill'), whereas tː(V)- is used elsewhere (e.g., awũ 'to do' - tː=awũ 'not to do'). The consonantal harmony is thus similar to the nominal oblique stem suffix -cʼi- / -čːi- / -čʼi- / -ži-, where the allomorphs are determined by the root consonant in Literary Lezgi [Haspelmath 1993: 63].
In Literary Lezgi, prohibitive is formed with the suffix -mi plus the participle suffix -r [Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 53; Haspelmath 1993: 5, 23].
Proto-Lezgian:*tːV-1
NCED: 404. Distribution: The proclitic *tːV- is retained as the default exponent of negation of assertion in finite verbal forms in Udi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Lezgi), on the other. In Nuclear Lezgian *tːV- is normally attached to the copula, constituting a negative particle.
In Caucasian Albanian, *tːV- is restricted to past (perfective) forms, whereas present (imperfective) forms are negated with the help of the proclitic nu- of unclear origin (theoretically possessing some scant cognates in Tsezian).
In Archi, negation of assertion is expressed with the suffixal morpheme =tʼu, which does not regularly correspond to *tːV- from the phonetic point of view. Theoretically, this could be an inner Archi innovation of unknown origin, but it is more likely that Archi =tʼu originates from *tːV- with the change of the morphosyntactical status and irregular glottalization (the expected Archi reflex should be **dV- or **=tːV). Cf. also the possible explanation proposed in [NCED: 404].
In Lezgi, *tːV- is restricted to non-finite forms, whereas the main finite negative exponent is the suffix *čːV [NCED: 1101]. The latter possesses some Lezgian cognates: in Rutul the prefix *čːV expresses negation of assertion in non-finite forms; in Archi, the suffixal chain -ču-gu expresses the dubitative mood ('the speaker wishes to know whether the fact is true') [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 91].
The Proto-Lezgian prohibitive exponent can be safely reconstructed as the proclitic *mV- [NCED: 797]: this morpheme is retained in both Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Nuclear Lezgian. In Archi, however, prohibitive is expressed with the suffix -di-gi or simple -gi. The origin of Archi -gi is not entirely clear, whereas -di could be somehow related to the main negative morpheme *tːV-.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the Archi morpheme.
Semantics and structure: Primary auxiliary morpheme.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: sa-class 'one' [Uslar 1979: 151; Dirr 1905: 42]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: sa-class {сав} 'one' [Genko 2005: 136].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: sa-class {саб} 'one' [Genko 2005: 135]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: sa-class {саб} 'one' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 265; Zhirkov 1948: 91; Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 52 f.].
TAB_NOTES:
See [Magometov 1965: 159 ff.] for the dialectal overview. Note the Northern archaic form sːa-class 'one' with the tense fricative, quoted in [Magometov 1965: 160, 165] without subdialectal specification.
Uslar 1896: 86. In the non-attributive function, the variant sa-d is used.
The same in Literary Lezgi: sa {са} 'one' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 566; Haspelmath 1993: 230] (in the non-attributive function, the variant sa-d {сад} is used).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut sa-d 'one' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 247].
Final -d is the old class exponent.
Proto-Lezgian:*sːa1
NCED: 323. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian words, retained with its original meaning in all the lects.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the metathesis *sːa > *ʔasː within the Archi paradigm.
Gukasyan 1974: 36; Mobili 2010: 19; Fähnrich 1999: 6; Dirr 1903: 12, 14, 16, 18, 26, 50, 93, 96; Schiefner 1863: 75; Schulze 2001: 246; Starchevskiy 1891: 508. In [Starchevskiy 1891] the variant amd-ar is also quoted (cf. the Nidzh form above).
UDI_NOTES:
An Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" for 'person, human being'. Forms in both dialects contain the fossilized plural suffix -ar. Note the vowel reduction and the subsequent metathesis dm > md in the Nidzh form.
Caucasian Albanian: išu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21, 48]. Suppletive paradigm with the following polysemy: išu 'man; person' (sg) / žin 'men; people' (pl.), see [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-17, 21, 48].
The meaning 'person' can also be expressed as ʁu-šuy-ʁar, literally 'living-man's son' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37] ← ʁuy 'living, alive' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37], išu-y 'man; person'-gen [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21], ʁar 'son' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37].
Distinct from qʼar 'tribe; clan, kin; nation, people; seed (botanic)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30].
Archi:adˈam-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 186, 388; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70; Mikailov 1967: 171; Dirr 1908: 125, 226. A close synonym of adˈam is the word insˈan 'person; somebody' (with the latter meaning used only in negative constructions as 'nobody') [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 247, 388; Mikailov 1967: 182; Dirr 1908: 153, 226]. Both words represent Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" terms for 'person, human being'.
Kryts (proper):admi-1
Saadiev 1994: 414, 416, 434; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. An Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" for 'person, human being'.
Alyk Kryts:adami-1
Authier 2009: 54, 70, 94, etc. See notes on Kryts proper.
Budukh:idmi {идми}-1
Meylanova 1984: 64, 250; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. A second term for 'person' is insan {инсан} [Meylanova 1984: 65, 250; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70]. Both words represent wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) terms for 'person, human being'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:insan ~ iːsan {инсан}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 878, 879, 901; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 192 sub kinnana].
Mikik Tsakhur:insan-1
Dirr 1913: 168, 242.
Gelmets Tsakhur:insan-1
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70.
TKR_NOTES:
The term represents the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) word for 'person, human being'.
In the Kurag subdialect: insan 'person' [Magometov 1970: 211 sentences 23, 29], idemi 'person' [Magometov 1970: 208 sentence 7].
AGX_NOTES:
Both of the attested terms (insan, idemi) represent the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) words for 'person, human being'.
Northern Tabasaran:ermˈi {эрми}-1
Genko 2005: 196. Not documented in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990].
For the Khanag subdialect three loanwords are known: armˈi 'person' [Uslar 1979: 588, 1009; Dirr 1905: 154, 246], insˈan 'person' [Uslar 1979: 734, 1009; Dirr 1905: 176, 246], kas 'man; person' [Uslar 1979: 779, 1009; Dirr 1905: 183, 246].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: armˈi {арми} 'person' [Genko 2005: 19], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Genko 2005: 76], kas {кас} 'person' [Genko 2005: 83].
Southern Tabasaran:edmˈi {эдми}-1
Genko 2005: 194. This form is actually from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'person' is unknown.
In sum, three loanwords are quoted for the Khiv subdialect: edmˈi {эдми} 'person' [Genko 2005: 194], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Genko 2005: 76], kas {кас} 'person' [Genko 2005: 83] (this form is not marked by Genko as Khiv due to accidental omission of the plus sign).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: admˈi {адми} 'person; man (q.v.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 50], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 178], kas {кас} 'person' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 190].
TAB_NOTES:
Totally superseded with various loanwords. Two of them, admi (~ edmi ~ armi ~ ermi) and insan, represent the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) words for 'person, human being'; for the dialectal rhotacism d > r see [Magometov 1965: 61]. The third term, kas, was borrowed from Persian kas 'person'.
Gyune Lezgi:insˈan-1
Uslar 1896: 439, 638. A wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term for 'person, human being'. The second Gyune word for 'person' is kas [Uslar 1896: 459, 638], borrowed from Persian kas 'person'.
The same loanwords for 'person' in Literary Lezgi: insˈan {инсан} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 139; Gadzhiev 1950: 927; Haspelmath 1993: 492, 524], kas {кас} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 152; Gadzhiev 1950: 927; Haspelmath 1993: 494].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːʷiy1
NCED: 336. Distribution: Hardly reconstructible, because inherited forms were completely superseded with wandering terms of Arabic or Persian origin in all the lects except for Caucasian Albanian. In Caucasian Albanian, the meaning 'person' is expressed with the same word as 'man' (< Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy 'man' q.v.) or with the "poetic" expression 'living-man's son'. We follow formal evidence and reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy with polysemy 'man / person'. Further see notes on 'man'.
On the other hand, the overwhelming amount of cases with borrowed terms for 'person' could point to the fact that Proto-Lezgian lacked a separate lexical item with this meaning. See similar situations with 'bird' and 'neck'.
Построить дерево