Kibrik et al. 1999: 874, 893; Ibragimov 1990: 101, 206. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 115], the Literary Tsakhur term is quoted as gʸ=oʁu-y {гёгъуй} with polysemy: 'atmospheric precipitation / appearance (e.g., Christ's appearance)' (the same form in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 61]).
The second, apparently less frequent term is uʁa-l {угъал} [Ibragimov 1990: 30; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 348], which contains the same root.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 61], quoted as gʸ=oʁu-y (an error?).
The second, apparently less frequent term is uʁa-l {угъал} [Ibragimov 1990: 185, 187], which contains the same root.
TKR_NOTES:
The term for 'rain' normally represents the synchronic masdar in -y from the verb gʸ=oʁ- 'to rain, snow' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 874; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 115]. Initial gʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. The more archaic formation is uʁa-l (Mishlesh, Gelmets), derived from the same root with the old l-suffix; this form must be reconstructed for Proto-Tsakhur.
An old derivative from the verbal root 'to rain', retained in Rutul as class=uʁ- (see notes on Mukhad). Initial h=/y=/0= are the class 1/4 exponents; final -l is the Proto-Lezgian suffix.
Marginal Ixrek maf 'rain' is an innovation, perhaps under the influence of some other Lezgian languages.
An old derivative from the verbal root 'to rain', retained in some Aghul dialects as uʁʷ-a- or uʁ-a- (with the dialectal dissimilation uCʷ > uC, on which see [Magometov 1970: 26]). Final -l is the Proto-Lezgian suffix.
Marginal Fite marf 'rain' is an innovation under the influence on the part of the Tabasaran language.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203. Distinct from the more specific Dyubek term cʼaw-ˈul 'drizzle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203] < *cʼay-ul < *cʼad-ul.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: marx 'rain' [Uslar 1979: 847, 993; Dirr 1905: 194, 227]. Distinct from Khanag cʼalː or cʼalː-ˈur 'drizzle' [Dirr 1905: 216], glossed as 'dew' in [Uslar 1979: 959]. Khanag cʼalː- < *cʼad-l-, cf. in Northern Tabasaran: Kumi cʼar-ˈul 'dew; a drop' < *cʼad-ul [Genko 2005: 177], in Southern Tabasaran: Tinit cʼad-ˈal, Khiv cʼud-ˈal 'a drop' [Genko 2005: 176, 178].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: marx {мархь} 'rain' [Genko 2005: 117]. Distinct from Khyuryuk cʼalː-ˈur {цIаллур} 'dew' [Genko 2005: 177], for which see above.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: marf {марф} 'rain' [Genko 2005: 117]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: čig {чиг} 'drizzle' [Genko 2005: 181], χmul {хмул} 'autumn rain' [Genko 2005: 165].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: marx {мархь} 'rain' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 224].
TAB_NOTES:
Cf. the old verb for 'to rain', which is retained as Northern (Khanag) wuqː-ˈ {вубкъув} 'to rain, snow' [Genko 2005: 33], Southern (Khiv) uʁ-ˈ {угъуб} 'to rain' [Genko 2005: 151].
The same in Literary Lezgi: marf {марф} 'rain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 231; Gadzhiev 1950: 178; Haspelmath 1993: 498, 525]. This is the basic term for 'rain' in the literary language. A second, more rare word with the meaning 'rain' is qːʷa-l {къвал} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 184; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 401] (not found in other sources). Cf. the verb qːʷa- {къун} 'to rain, snow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193; Gadzhiev 1950: 253; Haspelmath 1993: 502].
In the other dialects of the Kyuri group: Qurah (Kyuri group) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 169].
In the Samur group: Khlyut (subdialect of Akhty) yuqːˈa-l 'rain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203], Khuryug (subdialect of Akhty) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 302, 315], Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 262], Jaba qːo-l 'rain' [Ganieva 2007: 122, 133], Qurush qːʷa-l 'rain' [Ganieva 2008: 67, 144].
But in the Quba group: Yargun marf 'rain'[Babaliyeva 2007: 60, 68, 79, 91].
The common form qːʷa-l and Khlyut yuqːa-l are derived from the verb for 'to rain' (see above) with the rare and archaic suffix -l. External comparison suggests that this deverbative noun must be posited as the Proto-Lezgi word for 'rain', whereas Gyune/Quba marf in the generic meaning 'rain' represents an innovation of areal origin. The Khlyutform yuqːa-l is, however, morphologically suspicious; maybe it represents a borrowing from the neighboring Mukhad dialect of Rutul, cf. Mukhad h=uʁa-l ~ uʁa-l ~ y=uʁa-l 'rain' q.v. (if the Rutul shift qː > ʁ is a late process).
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔoqːʷa-l1
NCED: 1010. Distribution: Attested as the basic term for 'rain' in Udi, on the one hand, and in many Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and the most East Lezgian lects (Aghul, Lezgi).
This is a Proto-Lezgian derivative from the verb *ʔoqːʷa- 'to rain' with the suffix *-l, which forms deverbative abstract nouns [Alekseev 1985: 108 f.]. The verb *ʔoqːʷa- 'to rain' was retained in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). It should be noted that in modern Tsakhur dialects, it is the synchronic masdar from this verb that is mostly used for 'rain', whereas *ʔoqːʷa-l is obsolete.
A second candidate is *marɬʷ [NCED: 795], which is the basic term for 'rain' in Tabasaran, Fite Aghul, Ixrek Rutul, Gyune Lezgi (a Tabasaran-induced areal innovation), on the one hand, and in Budukh, on the other (apparently an independent introduction). The original meaning of *marɬʷ is unclear; outside of the aforementioned Nuclear Lezgian lects, it is attested in Archi as 'foam', whereas external comparison points to the meaning 'a k. of cloud'.
In Archi, the deverbative formation for 'rain' was replaced with *χːˤäl [LEDb: #307], whose Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'sky': this stem means 'sky' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and in Proto-Archi, as suggested by the Archi locative adverb χːˤolˈo 'in the sky, up in the air' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 340], which reflects (with Ablaut) the archaic oblique stem of χːˤel (χːˤel in the secondary meaning 'rain' possesses a regular paradigm).
In Kryts, 'rain' is expressed by the synchronically substantivized adjective 'wet' (*čʼäˤpː [NCED: 385]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. In [Gukasyan 1974: 241] and [Mobili 2010: 91], quoted without pharyngealization: čːočːa {чIочIа} (apparently an error on Gukasyan's part, repeated by Mobili). According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., the correct variant is čːˤočːˤa.
Gukasyan 1974: 241; Fähnrich 1999: 14; Schiefner 1863: 90; Schulze 2001: 267. In [Fähnrich 1999], correctly quoted with pharyngealization: čːˤočːˤa. In [Gukasyan 1974: 241], apparently quoted erroneously as čːočːa {чIочIа} (see notes on Nidzh Udi). The exact phonetic nature of affricates can hardly be established from old records of Schiefner and the Bežanovs (note that Bežanovs' {ч̆оч̆а} (Mt. 16.2) is incorrectly transcribed as čˤočˤa in [Schulze 2001: 267]).
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *čːˤočːˤa.
Caucasian Albanian: A good candidate is čʼočʼa [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-29], which renders the word 'purple' in Jo. 19.5, but it should be noted that the passage is damaged and the reading is not reliable.
Archi:yˈaˤtʼan-nu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 255, 364; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674; Mikailov 1967: 184; Dirr 1908: 156, 211. Quoted as yaˤtʼǝn-nu-class in [Mikailov 1967]. A regular participle from the stative verb yˈaˤtʼan 'to be red', borrowed from Lak yaˤtʼ-ul- 'red' (as proposed in [NCED: 541], probably from some Lak dialect that possessed not the -ul-, but the -an-suffix); in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed" without the source.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234. An adjective in -i. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674], quoted as ürü-ǯ - a reformed stem in -u with further vowel harmony i-u > ü-ü; -ǯ is a class exponent. The term irä-ǯ 'blood' q.v. is derived from this adjective.
Both in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674], the loanword qːɨrmɨzɨ is also quoted as a synonym (< Azerbaijani gɨrmɨzɨ 'red').
Authier 2009: 67, 112, 265. A reformed stem in -u, see notes on Kryts proper (Alyk iu normally corresponds to ü of other dialects).
Budukh:al {ал}-1
Meylanova 1984: 18, 218; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. Borrowed from Azerbaijani al 'red, vermilion, purple'.
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234], 'red' is glossed as qːɨrmɨzɨ, which is translated as 'dark red' in [Meylanova 1984: 93] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨrmɨzɨ 'red').
Kibrik et al. 1999: 871, 894; Ibragimov 1990: 83, 88; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 403; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. It must be noted that čʼara-n comes from [Kibrik et al. 1999], whereas in [Ibragimov 1990; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the word is consistently transcribed with pharyngealization: čʼˤara-n {чIаIран}. According to Kodzasov's report [Kibrik et al. 1999: 19], čʼara-n is one of the instances of the so-called epiglottalization (emphatic palatalization) - a specific prosodic feature of Mishlesh Tsakhur, not studied in detail yet and therefore not noted in Kibrik et al.'s transcription. Epiglottalized čʼara-n is incorrectly treated as a pharyngealized form by Ibragimov and other authors.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: erˈi 'red' [Uslar 1979: 684, 996; Dirr 1905: 168, 232]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: erˈi {эри} 'red' [Genko 2005: 196]; distinct from Khyuryuk elwˈen 'light red' [Genko 2005: 194]. The latter term was borrowed from Azerbaijani älwan 'many-colored, gaily colored' or from Persian alwaːn 'of various colors' (ultimately of Arabic origin).
The same in the Tinit subdialect: irˈi {ири} 'red' [Genko 2005: 77]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ürˈu {уьру} 'red' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 305].
Somewhat differently in the Khiv subdialects, where, according to Genko's glosses, ürˈu {уьру} means specifically 'dark red, brown-red' [Genko 2005: 159], as opposed to elwˈen 'light red' [Genko 2005: 194] (the latter term is a loanword, see notes on Northern Tabasaran).
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarˈu {яру} 'red' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 405; Gadzhiev 1950: 315; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut erˈi 'red' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔirɨ- ~ *ʔˤirɨ-2
NCED: 519. Distribution: This stem is attested with its basic meaning in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian lects (Kryts, Rutul, Aghul, Rutul, Lezgi), although it has been lost without a trace in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi). In Budukh, it was superseded with Azerbaijani loanwords in the meaning 'red', but retained in the substantivized expression for 'blood' q.v. In Tsakhur, the etymologically obscure word čʼara- (*čʼärä-?) 'red' occurs.
In Udi, the word for 'red' is čːˤočːˤa. An etymologically isolated (in Lezgian) adjective, whose Lezgian protoform could be *čːVčːV- [NCED: 348]. The Udi stem is incorrectly derived from the reduplicated *čːar-čːar- (with further connection to the Tsakhur term) in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-72].
Since in Archi, '(to be) red' is expressed with the Lak loanword, Nuclear Lezgian *ʔirɨ- and Udi *čːVčːV- appear to be equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'red' from the distributive point of view. External North Caucasian comparison, however, speaks in favor of *ʔirɨ- [NCED: 519]. It should be noted that, as proposed in [NCED: 348], *čːVčːV- could possess some scant Andian comparanda that also mean 'red'.
Replacements: {'red' > 'blood'} (Kryts, Budukh).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for some assimilative-dissimilative vowel fluctuations in Tabasaran and Lezgi.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be red'.
Caucasian Albanian: lʸaqʼ 'road, way, path; journey' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-24]; an etymological cognate of the Udi term with a different treatment of initial Lezgian *r-.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 189; Shaumyan 1941: 159; Magometov 1970: 205 sentences 10, 17, 19. The latter form is from [Magometov 1970]. In [Shaumyan 1941], incorrectly quoted as räq.
It is interesting that in [Magometov 1970: 205 sentence 15] this word is quoted as räqːˤ in the collocation mašini-n räqːˤ 'highway' - apparently a cultural borrowing from another Aghul dialect. Likewise in [Suleymanov 2003: 142], 'road' is quoted with pharyngealization: raqːˤ {ракъʿ}.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: raqːˤ 'road' [Uslar 1979: 894, 993; Dirr 1905: 202, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road' [Genko 2005: 135].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road' [Genko 2005: 135]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: riχ {рих} 'path, narrow road; fence, railings' [Genko 2005: 133] and ülčˈi {уьлчи} 'big road' [Genko 2005: 159] (the latter is of Turkic origin).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road (in general); path, narrow road' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 264]; distinct from the more specific term riχ {рих} 'path, narrow road; fence, railings' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 261].
The same in Literary Lezgi: req [abs.] / reqʼ-ˈi- [obl.] {рехъ} 'road' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 277; Gadzhiev 1950: 183; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut räq [abs.] / räqː-ˈi- [obl.] 'road' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 189].
Proto-Lezgian:*räqʼːˤ1
NCED: 603. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning in all the lects (including Caucasian Albanian), except for South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), this was superseded with the phonetically similar root *riχ [NCED: 606]. The exact original meaning of *riχ is unclear, because outside South Lezgian, its seems attested only in Tabasaran with the specific meaning 'path, narrow road; fence, railings'.
Gukasyan 1974: 206; Fähnrich 1999: 31; Schiefner 1863: 95; Schulze 2001: 325; Starchevskiy 1891: 501. Polysemy: 'root / lineage, kin, clan / bottom'. In [Schulze 2001], tum is glossed as 'root; seed; gender', although in the texts from [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] this word means only 'root (the underground part of tree/plant)', but not 'seed' q.v. and not, a fortiori, 'gender'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *tum. Originally borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms, but the semantic derivation 'seed' > 'root' seems to be inner Udi, therefore we treat tum 'root' as a full-fledged item (further see notes on Proto-Lezgian 'seed').
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:mˈarχːu-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 277, 363; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 401; Mikailov 1967: 192; Dirr 1908: 166, 211. Borrowed from Lak marχːa ~ marχːʷa 'root' (in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed" without the source).
A second term for 'root' is kuk {кук} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 147, 349] ~ kük {куьк} [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 401], borrowed from Azerbaijani kök 'root'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; Suleymanov 2003: 131; Shaumyan 1941: 151. In [Suleymanov 2003], quoted with -a-.
AGX_NOTES:
The Keren (Richa) form marqʷˤ is irregular (one could expect something like **marqʼʷˤ with the ejective uvular or even **marʡ ~ **marʢ). It is proposed in [NCED: 827] to treat Richa marqʷˤ as the result of contamination with another, poorly attested Proto-Lezgian root (*marqʷ), but we prefer to regard Richa marqʷˤ as a sporadic phonetic deviation.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ǯiw 'root' [Uslar 1979: 693, 996; Dirr 1905: 169, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ǯiw {жжив} 'root' [Genko 2005: 67].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: čːiw {ччив} 'root' [Genko 2005: 182]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: čːiw {ччив} 'root' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 340].
Uslar 1896: 408, 615. Distinct from pːun {пун} with polysemy: 'root / lower part, base / fortune, property' [Uslar 1896: 521], which is ultimately borrowed from Persian bun 'root (botanic); basis, foundation'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: duwˈul {дувул} 'root' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 114; Gadzhiev 1950: 309; Haspelmath 1993: 486, 525]. This is the default literary term for 'root'. Distinct from the Iranian loanword pːun {пун} with polysemy: 'root / stump, stub / lower part, base / fortune, property' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 268; Gadzhiev 1950: 309]. Distinct from the more specific inherited term čʼaraχʷ {чIарахв} 'small root' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 377].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut dɨwˈɨl 'root' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. Distinct from the more specific Khlyut term čʼarˈaχʷ 'small root' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: A highly unstable term, frequently superseded with loanwords. We prefer not to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian root at all. The following inherited forms are attested in Nuclear Lezgian lects; all these roots are equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'root'.
1) *malqʼʷˤ [NCED: 809], meaning 'root' in Aghul. The only Lezgian cognate is the word for 'sprout, shoot; nail, stud' in Archi (it could be tempting to connect this root to the not entirely clear Mishlesh Tsakhur word mɨʁlʸi ~ muʁlʸi 'root' via metathesis lQ > Ql, but the uvular and vowel correspondences are irregular). Since the meaning shift between 'root' and 'sprout' is typologically possible in both directions, the original meaning of Proto-Lezgian *malqʼʷˤ cannot be established. External North Caucasian comparison rather points to the semantics of 'sprout'.
2) *ƛʼːiw(a) [NCED: 571], meaning 'root' in Tabasaran, isolated in Lezgian, but possesses Avaro-Andian cognates with the meaning 'root'.
3) *qːʷapː [NCED: 464], meaning 'root' in Rutul, lost in the rest of Lezgian. Possible external North Caucasian comparanda mean 'pit' or 'foundation, base'.
4) Lezgi duwˈul, without etymology.
In other lects, inherited forms were superseded with loanwords: Archi (< Lak), Kryts, Budukh, Tsakhur (< Azerbaijani). In Udi, 'root' is expressed with the form tum which originally meant 'seed', ultimately borrowed from the Azerbaijani or Iranian word for 'seed' q.v.
Finally, it should be noted that in [NCED: 827], there is a Proto-Lezgian root *marqʷ, based on Archi maq 'stake, picket' and Keren Aghul (Richa) marqʷˤ 'root' (with irregular pharyngealization). This root does indeed possess good North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'root', but the internal Lezgian data are insufficient for reconstruction, since the Keren Aghul (Richa) form can hardly be separated from other Aghul words for 'root', which originate from *malqʼʷˤ (see above).
Gukasyan 1974: 139, 271; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 594; Mobili 2010: 172. Another term for 'round' is qːurucː {къуруцI} [Gukasyan 1974: 162; Mobili 2010: 196], semantic nuances as well as etymology are unknown.
Gukasyan 1974: 139, 271; Mobili 2010: 172; Fähnrich 1999: 20. Glossed as 'circle (n.)' in [Schiefner 1863: 82]. Cf. kːakːay with a strange gloss: 'a round object, whose size is less than normally', in [Mobili 2010: 171].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kːankː- with the cluster simplification in Vartashen. Different suffixal formations in the dialects, although morphological details are not entirely clear.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:gukːˈi-tːu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 232, 364; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593; Mikailov 1967: 177. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], quoted with a typo: gˈukːi-tːu-class. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'. A regular participle from the stative verb gˈukːi 'to be round', probably borrowed from Lak kːurkːi- 'round' (cf. notes in [NCED: 438]; in [Chumakina 2009] labeled as "clearly borrowed from Lak kːukːi 'round'", although such a form seems non-existent in Lak). Reasons for the cluster simplification VrkːV > VkːV in Archi are not clear, but note that in archaic Archi the medial cluster was still retained: gurkːi, gurkːi-tːu-class '(to be) round' [Dirr 1908: 138, 211].
Meylanova 1984: 37; Alekseev 1994: 283. In [Meylanova 1984: 79, 219], additional forms kungu-lu-ti ~ kungu-r-tʼi {кунгулути, кунгуртIи} 'round' are also quoted (the only forms in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593]), which could be errors or expressive variants. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'.
Note that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236] 'round' is glossed as qʼuqʼal, not found in other sources (for this form see [NCED: 933]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. The exact application is not specified; apparently, 'round 2D / 3D'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:top-xʸilʸi-nʸ3
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593. The exact application is not specified; apparently, 'round 2D / 3D'. Derived from the noun topː-, attested with the meaning 'ball' in the Mishlesh dialect [Kibrik et al. 1999: 888] and Literary Tsakhur [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 341] or 'wheel' in the Mikik dialect [Dirr 1913: 204], borrowed from Azerbaijani top 'ball; hub (of wheel)'. The morphological derivation, however, seems to be inner Tsakhur (the second element -xʸilʸi- from the verb ɨx- 'to become'?), therefore we treat top-xʸilʸi-nʸ 'round' as a full-fledged item.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 58, 350; Ibragimov 1978: 225; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593. This is quoted by Ibragimov as the basic Ixrek term for 'round' (without discrimination between the '2D' and '3D' meanings?).
Two additional (apparently less frequent) words for 'round' are quoted by Dzhamalov & Semedov, but without any specifications: 1) ruʁu-dɨ {ругъуды} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 217]; 2) tup-dɨ [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 248]. The latter seems to reflect internal Ixrek derivation from an unattested *tup 'ball', borrowed from Azerbaijani top 'ball' (the same is observed in Gelmets Tsakhur top-xʸilʸi-nʸ 'round').
The stem gɨrg-ɨ-n-, retained in Ixrek and Borch-Khnov, must be posited as the Proto-Rutul expression for 'round (2D/3D)'. This is confirmed by external comparison.
The stem ru-class-ʁ- 'round' is a Mukhad-Luchek innovation (marginally attested in Ixrek), derived from a verbal root which is attested as Mukhad ruʁ- 'to become round' [Makhmudova 2001: 182, 243], Ixrek ruʁ- 'to walk around, hang around' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 217], Ixrek ʁ=urʁ- 'to turn (intrans.)' (initial ʁ= is a prefix with general semantics). The initial consonant r- in ruʁ- belongs to the root, but can sometimes become contaminated with the class 1/2 exponent r=.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. Meaning: 'round 3D'. Probably dissimilated from *al=arc-ri-r - a regular past participle from the verb 'to turn', see common Aghul notes.
Distinct from tʼaˤrlič, which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236] for the meaning 'round 2D'. There also exists a third Burshag term: cʼekːʷ 'round' [Shaumyan 1941: 189] (glossed simply as 'round'); actually it seems to be an error on the part of Shaumyan, because this form is to be read as the substantive cʼekʼʷ 'skein, hank' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 145].
Cf. in other subdialects: Arsug or Khudig kːurʢ-ne-d, al=alc-ni-d 'round' [Suleymanov 2003: 51] (both glossed simply as 'round', application and exact dialectal provenance are unknown).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Suleymanov 1993: 65; Dirr 1907: 109, 175; Shaumyan 1941: 189. The former form is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] as 'round 3D' and in [Suleymanov 1993] without specifications; the latter one is from [Dirr 1907] and [Shaumyan 1941] with an example for 'round 2D': "round table" [Dirr 1907: 109].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Shaumyan 1941: 189. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], meaning 'round 3D'; in [Shaumyan 1941], quoted without semantic specifications.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe gurg-e-n-f, Khpyuk gilg-e-n-f [Shaumyan 1941: 189; Suleymanov 1993: 65] - both glossed simply as 'round', application unknown; Kurag gilg-e-n- 'round 3D' [Magometov 1970: 206 sentence 21] ("round stone").
AGX_NOTES:
The semantic opposition 'round 3D' / 'round 2D' is highly atypical for Dagestanian languages. The emergence of such an opposition is obviously a recent innovation of the Koshan, Fite, and possibly some other dialects of Aghul.
The non-Koshan dialects retain the basic Proto-Lezgian root *girgʷV- 'round (3D, 2D)' [NCED: 438], although its phonetical reflexes are rather unstable and irregular (as in other Lezgian languages as well). Koshan kːurʢ-ne-d 'round' may theoretically continue the same Proto-Lezgian root *girgʷV- 'round'.
In Koshan and Fite the past participles from the verb 'to turn' have been introduced for 'round 3D' (Koshan al=arc-ni-r ~ al=alc-ni-d) and 'round 2D' (Fite al=urcu-t). The proper verbal stem is attested as Koshan al=arc-ana- 'to turn (trans., intrans.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82; Suleymanov 2003: 27], Keren (Usug) al=urc-a- 'to turn (trans.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 137], Gequn al=urc-a- 'to go round smth.' [Dirr 1907: 101], Proper Aghul (Tpig) al=urc-a- 'to turn (trans.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 137; Suleymanov 2003: 27] (al= is an old spatial prefix).
Koshan (Burshag) tʼaˤrlič 'round 2D' is an obscure form.
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. The accent pattern indicates that the form is a recent compound, although the first element cʼi= is unclear.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cʼˈi=gurgu-mi 'round' [Dirr 1905: 161, 232] (not found in [Uslar 1979]). Plain stem in the Khyuryuk subdialect: gurgu-mˈi {гургуми} 'round' [Genko 2005: 38].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: gerg-mˈi {гергми} 'round' [Genko 2005: 37]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: gerg-mˈi {гергми} 'round (2D, 3D)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 98].
TAB_NOTES:
Apparently with polysemy: 'round (2D, 3D)' in all the dialects.
Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 393; Gadzhiev 1950: 320; Haspelmath 1993: 525. This is actually the Literary Lezgi word; the proper Gyune term for 'round' is not documented in [Uslar 1896]. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'. Participle from the literary verb el=qːʷˈe- {элкъвуьн} 'to turn (intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 393; Haspelmath 1993: 487] = Gyune äl=qːʷˈe- 'to turn (intrans.)' [Uslar 1896: 352] (Vl= is an old spatial prefix).
The same participle in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut el=qːʷˈä-y 'round 3D/2D' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236].
Proto-Lezgian:*girgʷV1
NCED: 438. Distribution: This stem is retained with the basic meaning in Udi, on the one hand, and in almost all Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. Normally, the polysemy 'round 3D / round 2D' is observed, although some Aghul dialects introduce the lexical opposition 'round 3D' / 'round 2D'.
In Aghul dialects and Lezgi, 'round' ('3D/2D', '3D' or '2D) represents a synchronic participle from the verb 'to turn': *ʔilcal [NCED: 649] or *ʔirqːʷä- (~ -ʁʷ-) [NCED: 650]. Similarly in some Rutul dialects (Mukhad, Ixrek, Luchek), 'round' is synchronically derived from the verb 'to be round; to walk around, hang around': the same Proto-Lezgian root *ʔirqːʷä- (~ -ʁʷ-), as in Lezgi, but with slightly different synchronic meaning.
In Gelmets Tsakhur, Ixrek Rutul, 'round' is derived from the noun for 'ball' or 'wheel'.
Etymologically unclear forms include Nidzh Udi qːurucː, Alyk Kryts bembeleɢʷatʼa, Koshan Aghul tʼaˤrlič.
Reconstruction shape: Particular correspondences are not regular, especially in the case of the medial resonant. Despite this, most of the listed forms can hardly be kept apart from each other.
Semantics and structure: Primary nominal or stative verbal root with polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'.
Gukasyan 1974: 161; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31; Mobili 2010: 196. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. A second term for 'sand' quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31] is šum {шум}, which at first sight looks like an etymological retention, but is, in fact, a graphical confusion between Nidzh qːum and Vartashen ša (Dm. Ganenkov, p.c.).
Gukasyan 1974: 246; Mobili 2010: 196, 254; Fähnrich 1999: 29; Schiefner 1863: 91; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. According to [Fähnrich 1999], with polysemy: 'sand / road metal'. In [Schulze 2001: 315] only the Azerbaijani loan qːum is quoted.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ša.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:sˈarsi2
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 313, 373; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31; Mikailov 1967: 197. Specified as 'sand, very fine gravel' in [Chumakina et al. 2007].
Distinct from qum 'sand; down, small feathers' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 298, 373; Mikailov 1967: 203], specified as 'seaside sand' in [Chumakina et al. 2007]. In the meaning 'sand' represents an Azerbaijani loanword.
Dirr 1912: 183, 197; Ibragimov 1978: 118. The assimilated variant šum is attested in [Dirr 1912] as well as in [Ibragimov 1978: 138] (as a toponymical element); glossed by Dirr as 'sand, fine gravel'. In [Ibragimov 1978: 118], two Mukhad synonyms are quoted for 'sand': šim and secʼ. In [Makhmudova 2001] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], only the latter word has been found.
Ixrek Rutul:qːum {къум}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 158, 372. It must be noted that in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31], 'sand' is glossed as secʼ {сецI}.
Luchek Rutul:qːum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
RUT_NOTES:
Borch-Khnov: šüˤm ~ šum 'sand' [Ibragimov 1978: 229, 231] (with secondary pharyngealization). Cf. also Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad) šum 'shale' or 'schistose sandstone' (Russian: 'сланец') [Ibragimov 1978: 136].
External Lezgian comparison suggests that the Proto-Rutul term for 'sand' was *šim, retained in the Mukhad and Borch-Khnov dialects. The Mukhad (and Ixrek?) word secʼ 'sand' is of unknown origin. Ixrek and Luchek qːum was borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'.
For the Usug subdialect, two words are glossed as 'sand' in [Shaumyan 1941: 160, 188]: borrowed qːum and inherited rug. The difference between the two terms is unknown.
In all dialects the Azerbaijani loanword has been introduced in the meaning 'sand' (qːum < Azerbaijani gum 'sand'), except for Usug Keren, where the inherited rug 'sand' is attested instead. Usug rug represents the Common Aghul word for 'dust' (shifted to 'earth' in some Aghul dialects, see notes on 'earth'). Theoretically, one can reconstruct Proto-Aghul *rug with polysemy: 'dust / sand', but alternatively, this could be an Usug innovation or even an inaccurate gloss on the part of Shaumyan.
Northern Tabasaran:ɢum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: qːum 'sand' [Uslar 1979: 831, 1001] (not attested in [Dirr 1905]); distinct from Khanag sims {симс} 'gravel' [Uslar 1979: 908]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Genko 2005: 102]; distinct from Khyuryuk sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Genko 2005: 139].
Southern Tabasaran:ʁum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Genko 2005: 102]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Genko 2005: 139] and šim {шим} 'shale sand, hazel (used to cover the roof)' [Genko 2005: 190].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁum {гъум} 'sand' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 115]; distinct from sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 271] and šim {шим} 'gruss' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 350].
TAB_NOTES:
In all the dialects the basic term represents a borrowing from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. Common Tabasaran sims 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' also looks like a loanword, although the source is unclear. In contrast, Southern šim 'shale sand, gravel' is an inherited form.
Gyune Lezgi:qːum-1
Uslar 1896: 494, 623. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. Distinct from inherited Gyune šim 'gravel, coarse sand' [Uslar 1896: 602, 623]
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193; Gadzhiev 1950: 534; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 525]. Distinct from inherited šim {шим} 'gruss' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 385].
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːɨm 'sand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199]. Khlyut ɨm < um is a late process, cf., e.g., inherited gɨm 'smoke'.
Proto-Lezgian:*šːäm1
NCED: 340. Distribution: Inherited words for 'sand' were almost totally superseded with the Azerbaijani loanword in Lezgian lects, although *šːäm is retained with the basic meaning 'sand' in Vartashen Udi and Rutul (Mukhad, Borch-Khnov). This root is also attested in many Nuclear Lezgian lects in such specific meanings as 'road metal', 'coarse sand'. Formally, available Nuclear Lezgian evidence allows us to reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *šːäm with polysemy: 'sand / fine gravel / road metal'.
In Keren Aghul (Usug), *rukː 'dust' [NCED: 603] can secondarily acquire the meaning 'sand'.
Etymologically unclear forms for 'sand' are Archi sˈarsi, Mukhad Rutul secʼ.
Maisak 2008a: 108-110; Maisak 2008b: 163; Schulze 2005: 539 (3.4.2.1 #22). In [Gukasyan 1974: 188; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 765; Mobili 2010: 232] only the masdar pesun {песун} is quoted.
According to [Maisak 2008a: 108 ff., 149], the verb has a suppletive paradigm: ne(χ)- (present) / (u)p- (infinitive) / up- (imperative) / p- (past) / ukː- (future). In the present forms the variant ne- is normally used, when it is followed by a group of clitical markers that contains a person exponent; in other cases, the variant neχ- is used (T. Maisak's p. c.., see also [Maisak 2008a: 109, 149]). The variant neχ- is apparently primary, whereas ne- demonstrates secondary reduction.
The infinitive variants up- and p- are distributed as follows: p- in the infinitive p-es and, as a doublet, in the masdar p-es-un; the variant up- is used in the masdar up-s-un and in the oblique stem of the infinitive up-s- [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.].
The general suppletive pattern is the same in both dialects, although some important details differ. The main difficulty is in the discrepancy between present tense roots Nidzh neχ- and Vartashen eχ-, which do not correspond to each other. Currently, we do not see any phonetic or morphological way to compare these morphemes etymologically. It must be noted that it is possible to propose some Lezgian comparanda for Vartashen eχ-, but probably not for Nidzh neχ-.
The reconstruction of Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi paradigm is a more intricate question, because both neχ- and eχ- lack cognates in known Caucasian Albanian lexicon.
On one hand, the Udi present (n)eχ- looks like a pure archaism, since this is the only Udi verb whose present tense forms are not derived from the infinitive [Maisak 2008a: 109] (on the secondary origin of the modern Udi present pattern see [Maisak 2008b: 169 ff.]).
On the other hand, the Caucasian Albanian present stem ukʼ-a- directly corresponds to the modern Nidzh conjunctive ukː-a-, cited, e.g., in [Maisak 2008b: 206 (ex. 92)] (the hypothesis that the modern Udi conjunctive with thematic -a- originates from the old present has perspicaciously been proposed in [Maisak 2008b: 208 ff., 216] and is now proven by Caucasian Albanian data).
In the light of the latter, the modern Udi present tense morphemes (n)eχ- look like a recent innovation that superseded old ukː- in the present forms, whereas ukː- is still retained in the conjunctive and the al-participle (on the basis of which the future tense is formed in modern Udi).
In fact, the situation is quite unclear. Note also a likely hypothesis that in the verb system the general proto-opposition was imperfective (= present) with thematic -a- vs. perfective (= past) with thematic -i- (or -e-?) [Maisak 2008b: 208].
Another issue to be discussed is the variation of the morphemes up- ~ p-, which are used for the infinitive, past and imperative both in Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi. It must be noted that the distribution of the variants with and without u- is not fully the same in Caucasian Albanian, Nidzh and Vartashen. In the light of the Caucasian Albanian data, it is natural to suppose that the modern Udi infinitive-masdar forms with p- (p-es, p-esun) are secondary (these are probably leveled up after the past stem p(e)-).
Thus, we have at least three archaic verbs with the fluctuation between uC- and CV- within the paradigm, namely:
It is obvious that we deal with the remnant of some kind of ablaut: *V1CV in the infinitive, imperative and present(?) (> CA-Udi uC-) vs. *V2CV in the past (> CA-Udi CV- with reduction of the initial vowel). For Ablaut in Proto-Lezgian, see some preliminary observations in [NCED: 166 ff.]. Out of several supposed patterns the best traced one is *i (the infinitive and terminative stems, scil. perfective) vs. *ä (the durative stem, scil. imperfective). This could be the Caucasian Albanian-Udi case, although Proto-Lezgian TMA oppositions as well as segmental vocalic reconstruction have not yet been sufficiently elaborated.
Summing up, the following Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi suppletive paradigm for 'to say' can be reconstructed with relative safety: *ukʼ-a- (imperfective) / *up- (infinitive, imperative) / *p(e)- (perfective). The origin as well as the paradigmatic status of the modern present roots, Nidzh neχ-, Vartashen eχ-, are obscure.
The present stem appears in two variants: ukʼ-a- and k'-a-. The general distribution is as follows: ukʼ-a- in plain forms / kʼ-a- as a second root in verbal compounds (although with minor exceptions in both directions). Obviously, ukʼ- is the original variant, whereas kʼ- represents a secondary syncope of the first vowel (apparently caused by vowel contraction at the morpheme boundaries).
As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 71; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Chumakina et al. 2007], a suppletive verb: bo- [inf., perf.] / war- [imperf.] / ba [imv.]. We treat bo- and wa-r- as synonyms (although both synchronic roots are etymologically related).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 148. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 71 sub yersɨz].
Synchronically suppletive verb: yuʔu-r- [imperf.] / yɨpǝ- [perf., imv.] / yu-mo-ʔu [prohib.]. We treat yuʔu- and yɨpǝ- as synonyms (although both synchronic morphemes are etymologically related). Initial y- could theoretically be the prefix 'across' [Alekseev 1994: 271].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 765], 'to say' is incorrectly glossed as ħaraqʼar- {хIаракьар}, which in fact means 'to tell, speak' [Meylanova 1984: 149; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 149].
Distinct from yišon-(h)aʔ- 'to tell, speak' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880], a formation from yišo 'a k. of poem' with the verb (h=)aʔ- 'to do' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 58 f.].
The same apophonic root is attested with various prefixes: ʁ=axu- {гъахьус} 'to say smth. to another person to impart it to a third person' [Makhmudova 2001: 120], q=uxu- 'to retell' [Ibragimov 1978: 121].
The original root is =uxʷ- (as proved by the thematic -u- in the imperfective stem), although the imperative and prohibitive forms have been secondarily delabialized in the modern dialects (a common Rutul process of the delabialization of verbal roots).
Initial r= is the imperfective exponent.
Koshan Aghul:kː-a-5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 148; Magometov 1970: 228 sentences 7, 9, 13. Suppletive stem: kː-a- [imperf.] / p-una-w [perf.] / ip [imv.] / p-a- [inf., prohib.]. The imperfective stem is missing from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], but attested in the Burshag text from [Magometov 1970]. The imperfective stem kː-a- 'to say' is also attested in the Arsug and Khudig subdialects, see [Magometov 1970: 230 sentences 9, 10; 234 sentences 17, 18; 236 sentences 6, 12; 236 sentences 17, 25].
Distinct from Tpig ʁurʁa- 'to speak' [Suleymanov 2003: 56].
AGX_NOTES:
The Koshan and non-Koshan dialects differ as to the imperfective stem: Koshan kː-a- / non-Koshan aʁ-a-. The Lezgian etymology of both imperfective roots is not entirely clear.
Uslar 1896: 499, 632. Ablaut paradigm: l=uhˈu- [imperf.] / l=ahˈa- [perf.] / l=ah [imv.]. Initial l= is a fossilized prefix. Distinct from two Gyune verbs for 'to speak': lekʼʷˈen- / lekʼˈün- [Uslar 1896: 498, 608] and gafˈar- [Uslar 1896: 376, 608] - the latter is historically a complex verb 'to do words', consisting of gaf-ˈar 'words' and eyˈi- / awˈu- 'to do'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: l=uhˈu- [imperf.] / l=ahˈa- [perf.] / l=ah ~ l=aha [imv.] {лугьун} 'to say' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 225; Gadzhiev 1950: 769; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 525; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 21]. Distinct from literary raχˈa- [imperf.] / raχˈu- [perf.] {рахун} 'to speak' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 273; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 146] and lükʼün- {луькIуьнун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 226; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 23] - the latter verb is marked as "dialectal" in the dictionaries.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiʔʷˤɨ-3
NCED: 625. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'to say' in all the lects, except for Rutul. The suppletive paradigm of 'to say' with two etymologically different roots for the imperfective and perfective stems is only attested in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and two East Lezgian languages: Aghul, Tabasaran. In these languages, *ʔiʔʷˤɨ- is restricted to the perfective stem, whereas the imperfective stems contain various roots that differ even within dialects of one language (because of this, there are no reasons to postulate the suppletive opposition between perfective and imperfective stems for Proto-Lezgian).
In Caucasian Albanian, the imperfective root is *ʔilkʼʷan [NCED: 634], whose original meaning was 'to talk, speak' vel sim.
In Udi, two present (imperfective) roots are attested: neχ- (Nidzh), eχ- (Vartashen), whose etymological origin is unclear. Formally, Vartashen eχ- can be compared to the scantily attested Nuclear Lezgian verb *ʔerχʷa 'to ask; to read' [NCED: 604].
In Tabasaran, the root *ʔeƛʼʷV [NCED: 413] acquired the imperfective function within the paradigm 'to say'. The exact protomeaning of *ʔeƛʼʷV cannot be reconstructed, 'a k. of verbum dicendi'.
In Aghul, two different roots were introduced for the imperfective stem: kː-a- (Koshan dialect), aʁ-a- (non-Koshan dialects). Their etymology is not entirely clear.
Finally, in Rutul, *ʔiʔʷˤɨ- 'to say' was totally superseded with *ʔoɬːʷa- [NCED: 1011], whose original meaning was 'to be silent' vel sim. as proved by both the Lezgian cognates and the external North Caucasian comparanda. The direct shift 'to be silent' > 'to say' does not seem possible; thus, the hypothetical chain 'to keep silent' > 'to listen' > 'to cause to listen' > 'to say', proposed in [NCED], appears to be a good solution.
Replacements: {'to be silent' > 'to say'} (Rutul).
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, although reflexes in individual languages are seriously tangled because of the class infix *pː, which is especially typical for the perfective variant of the root. Caucasian Albanian-Udi -p- can be either the direct reflex of *ʔʷ (thus [NCED]) or rather a trace of the same infix.
Common Udi *akː-esun 'to see' as opposed to *beʁˤ-esun 'to look' (historically *b=eʁˤ- with the fossilized class prefix). The complex verb 'to find' is based on the ablauted variant of the latter root: Nidzh b=aʁˤ-ap-sun, Vartashen b=oʁˤ-ap-sun [Gukasyan 1974: 74] (-(a)p- is a light verb with general semantics; note the assimilative labialization a > o in Vartashen).
Caucasian Albanian: akʼ-esun [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5]. Distinct from beʁ-esun 'to look' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-8] (with the preverb čʼe= this means 'to hope, expect, wait').
Kibrik et al. 1999: 875, 892; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 208; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668. According to [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], with an ablaut paradigm in Literary Tsakhur: qː=eǯ-e [imperf.] / qː=aǯ-ɨ [perf.] / qː=aǯ-es [fut.]; but for Mishlesh, a non-ablaut paradigm qː=aǯ- (qː=aǯ-e- [imperf., fut.] / qː=aǯ-ɨ [perf.]) is recorded in [Kibrik et al. 1999].
It should also be noted that in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] some forms are quoted that can point to old labialized -ǯʷ- (masdar 1/4 qː-aǯʷ-iː {къаджвий}, neg. masdar 1/4 qː-id-eǯʷ-iː, 2 qː-id-e-y-ǯʷ-iː), although the perfective stem is qː-aǯ-ɨ, not **qː-aǯ-u.
Distinct from ilʸ=akː- 'to look' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878] (ilʸ= is a prefix).
Ibragimov 1990: 46; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668. The future stem ʁ=až-ez is attested, as well as the variant ʁ=ež- in the negative future (ʁ=id=ež-ez) [Ibragimov 1990: 197].
TKR_NOTES:
Note sporadic -ǯʷ- in Mishlesh. Initial ʁ= (Mishlesh qː=) is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 61, 327. Paradigm: ʁ=ägʷ-ä-r- [perf.] / ʁ=äg-u-r [perf.]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668], quoted with an error.
Distinct from g=eqː- {гекъкъын} 'to look' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 52]; the same verb is quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 197, 214] as gʸ=aq- {гʹахъас} 'to look' (apparently an error for expected **gʸ=aq- {гʹах̄ъас}).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173; Suleymanov 2003: 15; Shaumyan 1941: 140; Magometov 1970: 229 sentences 8, 14. All the sources quote this root with tense qːˤ, except for [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], where the lax (aspirated) qˤ is transcribed. The external Lezgian comparison also speaks in favour of the tense uvular [NCED: 547]. Apparently a typo in Kibrik & Kodzasov's dictionary.
The same in other subdialects: Arsug, Khudig raqːˤ-a- 'to see' [Magometov 1970: 234 sentence 36; 236 sentence 39; 237 sentence 49; Shaumyan 1941: 140].
The same in other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug agʷ-a- 'to see' [Shaumyan 1941: 140].
Distinct from Tpig qu=tː=urf-ana- 'to look' [Suleymanov 2003: 183].
AGX_NOTES:
The Koshan dialect (raqːˤ-a- 'to see') is opposed to the non-Koshan ones (agʷ-a- 'to see'). The Koshan (Burshag) etymological cognate for the latter verb is ug-a- ~ agʷ-a- 'to seek' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 66]. Although both of the meanings ('to see' and 'to seek') can theoretically originate from one root for 'to watch' vel sim., the external Lezgian etymology suggests that the Proto-Aghul verb for 'to see' was agʷ-a-, whereas raqːˤ-a- originally expressed a controlled action, such as 'to look, watch'. The shift of the Koshan verb raqːˤ-a- to the meaning 'to see' was influenced on the part of the Tabasaran language (q.v.), where the same semantic development occurred. It is interesting that in the Kryts-Budukh subbranch the etymological cognates of Aghul raqːˤ-a- also demonstrate the meaning shift to generic 'to see' - apparently an independent innovation.
Note the rare case of retention of the Lezgian imperfective infix -r- in the Gequn and Proper Aghul imperfective stem a-r-gʷ-a- (cf. [Suleymanov 1993: 138 f.]).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: raqːˤ-ˈ {рякъюб} 'to see' [Genko 2005: 135]; distinct from Khiv liɣ-ˈ {лиггуб} 'to look' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: raqːˤ-ˈ {рябкъюб} 'to see' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 263]; distinct from literary liɣ-ˈ {либгуб} 'to look' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 217].
In the Khoredzh subdialect: arqːˤ- {аьркъю} 'to see' [Genko 2005: 24].
TAB_NOTES:
Both shapes, AQ- (Northern) and RAQ- (Southern), are etymologically related and originate from the metathetical variants *ARQ- and *RAQ- respectively (< Lezgian *ʔarqʼːˤä-). The cluster *RQ was simplified in Northern Tabasaran, but retained in the Southern (Khoredzh) form arqːˤ-, unless it is to be analyzed as a-r-qːˤ- with the fossilized class infix -r-. The Northern (Khyuryuk) suppletive paradigm raqːˤ-ˈ / aqːˤ-ˈ might be the most archaic; in the rest of the subdialects one of the variants has spread across the paradigm.
The same in Literary Lezgi: akːʷˈa- [imperf.] / akːˈu- [perf.] {акун} 'to see' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 36; Gadzhiev 1950: 86; Haspelmath 1993: 480, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 56] (in [Haspelmath 1993] incorrectly quoted as akːˈa-). Distinct from two literary verbs for 'to look': kilˈig- {килигун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 158; Gadzhiev 1950: 788; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 354] and tamˈaš- {тамашун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 305; Gadzhiev 1950: 788; Haspelmath 1993: 507, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 241] - the latter is historically a complex verb 'to do showing', consisting of the Persian-Azerbaijani loanword tamaša 'performance, show' and iyˈi- / awˈu- 'to do'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔakːʷä-1
NCED: 255. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'to see' in both outliers (Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi) and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: Rutul, non-Koshan Aghul, Lezgi. In Tabasaran and Koshan Aghul, *ʔakːʷä- shifted to the meaning 'to search' (a Tabasaran-induced isogloss), whereas in Tsakhur, this acquired the meaning 'to show' (in Tsakhur, 'to see' is expressed with an etymologically obscure root, whose protoform could be *ʔačːV- [LEDb: #207]). In Luchek Rutul, *ʔakːʷä-, modified with another prefix, also means 'to find': aq=agʷ- [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 67].
The second root, well attested with the generic meaning 'to see', is *ʔarqʼːˤä- [NCED: 547]. It means 'to see' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the one hand, and in Tabasaran and Koshan Aghul, on the other. Apparently we deal with two independent Nuclear Lezgian shifts (the latter case represents a Tabasaran-induced isogloss). The exact meaning of *ʔarqʼːˤä- is not entirely clear, but actually, this is the best candidate for the basic Proto-Lezgian verb, denoting controlled action ('to look'), because *ʔarqʼːˤä- is reflected as 'to look' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi (b=eʁˤ-; also as 'to find' in Udi), on the one hand, and in Rutul (g=aqː-), on the other.
A second, weaker, candidate for 'to look' is *ʔakV- / *ʔokV- [NCED: 598], which is attested as 'to look' in Archi and in Alyk Kryts. In other Nuclear Lezgian, *ʔakV- / *ʔokV- means 'to find' (Kryts Proper, Tsakhur), 'to search' (Aghul), 'to ask' (Rutul).
In Proto-East Lezgian, the old root for 'to look' (*ʔarqʼːˤä- or *ʔakV- / *ʔokV-) was superseded with *liƛː[a] [NCED: 209]. This stem is attested as 'to look' in Koshan Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi, but was lost in the rest of Lezgian languages.
In non-Koshan Aghul, *liƛː[a] was replaced with certain prefixed forms, whose root is reconstructed as *ʔVrɬ(ː)ʷVn in [NCED: 1031]; this Aghul root lacks Lezgian cognates, but may possess external North Caucasian comparanda.
Finally, in individual Nuclear Lezgian lects, several verbs for 'to look' are attested, whose etymology is not entirely clear: Kryts (proper) k=ösɨ-, Budukh irħä-, Tsakhur ilʸ=akː-.
Gukasyan 1974: 233; Fähnrich 1999: 11; Schiefner 1863: 89; Schulze 2001: 265. There are two additional words, glossed in [Schulze 2001] as 'seed': bitːun 'seed' [Schulze 2001: 138 fn. 5, 259] and tum 'root; seed; gender' [Schulze 2001: 325]. However, neither of them means 'seed (botanic)' in the texts included in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] (for tum see notes on Udi 'root' and Proto-Lezgian 'seed').
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *cil. Apparently a Proto-Lezgian word, see [Alekseev 2008: 317]. Schulze proposes that the Udi term was borrowed from Old Armenian čiwɫ ~ čiɫ 'branch, bough; stump, stock, stem; finger' (thus [Schulze 2001: 265]) or Old Armenian cʰeɫ 'tribe, caste, race, branch' (thus [Gippert et al. 2008: II-68]). Both hypothetical sources of borrowing are unlikely, from semantic and sociolinguistic points of view.
Caucasian Albanian: qʼar with polysemy 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30]. Cf. also ruʁ 'clan, kin, posterity / fruit' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37], which is not attested in the meaning 'seed (botanic)' pace [Gippert et al. 2008: II-68] (because of the initial r-, ruʁ should be a borrowing from unknown source).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 345, 380; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391; Mikailov 1967: 191. Polysemy: 'seed / sperm'. Paradigm: ɬːʷin [abs.] / ɬːunː-ˈi [erg.] / ɬːunː-ˈi-t [loc.]. Oblique forms like ɬːunːˈi could alternatively be analyzed as ɬun- + the common oblique suffix -li (with the regular assimilation nl > nː), but this suffix is always unaccented [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 16 f.], which is not the case here. An unclear situation, because Lezgian and North Caucasian comparison strongly predicts the lax -n-.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
Meylanova 1984: 136, 239; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / clan, kin'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391] 'seed' is incorrectly glossed as kʼap {кIап} and cʼɨcʼ {цIыцI}, which actually mean 'stone (of fruit, berry)' [Meylanova 1984: 98] and 'small black seeds in rice' [Meylanova 1984: 151] respectively.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:toχum {тохум}-1
Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 343. Not attested in [Kibrik et al. 1999]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is quoted as tum (another Azerbaijani loanword).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: dʸenʸe [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111]. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
Mikik Tsakhur:dʸenʸe-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:dʸenʸe-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is quoted as tum (another Azerbaijani loanword).
It should be noted that in [Dirr 1912: 173, 202], 'seed' is quoted as tom (borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms).
Ixrek Rutul:tuχum {тухум}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 391; Ibragimov 1978: 223, 225. It must be noted that in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 249] tuχum is glossed only as 'clan, kin'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity'.
A second term for 'seed' is tum {тум} with polysemy: 'clan, kin / seed (botanic)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 248]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is erroneously quoted as suk, which actually means 'wheat; grain' in Ixrek [Ibragimov 1978: 205, 225].
Luchek Rutul:tuχum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed'.
RUT_NOTES:
The Proto-Rutul term for 'seed' cannot be reconstructed with certainty, because Mukhad suk 'seed' seems a recent introduction (not yet noted in [Dirr 1912]), derived from the meaning 'grain', cf. Khnyukh Rutul (subdialect of Mukhad) suk 'grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 136], Shinaz Rutul suk 'grain' [Dirr 1912: 171], Ixrek Rutul suk 'wheat; grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 205, 223, 225], Luchek Rutul suk 'a grain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111], Borch-Khnov Rutul suk 'a grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 292], further to Tsakhur suk 'wheat' [Dirr 1913: 203].
Cf. also the old root for 'seed', which is retained as Borch-Khnov xin {хьин} ‘wheat’ [Ibragimov 1978: 283], Ixrek xin-če {хьинче} ‘beverage of barley flour (home brew)’ [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 282].
The Aghul word was borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms. The form dil can be posited as the Proto-Aghul term for 'stone of fruit'.
Northern Tabasaran:tum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Distinct from Dyubek dil 'stone (of fruit)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 109].
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: tum 'seed; grain' [Uslar 1979: 916, 1005]; distinct from inherited dil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Uslar 1979: 668, 1005] (neither of the words is attested in [Dirr 1905]).
Similarly in the Khyuryuk subdialect: tum {тум} 'seed; grain' [Genko 2005: 144]; distinct from inherited dil {дил} 'seed' [Genko 2005: 60]; the difference between the two terms is not specified by Genko, but, most likely, dil denotes specifically 'seed (of vegetable, berry), stone', since the Russian gloss "семя" possesses both meanings.
Southern Tabasaran:tum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: tum {тум} with polysemy: 'seed / grain / ferment (for milk)' [Genko 2005: 144]; distinct from Khiv cːil {ццил} 'seed' [Genko 2005: 176], the difference between the two terms is not specified by Genko, and in reality cːil should rather denote 'seed (of vegetable, berry), stone' (see notes on the Khanag and Khyuryuk subdialects above). It must be noted that phonetically Khiv cːil is apparently a borrowing from Lezgi cːil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)', rather than an etymological counterpart of inherited Northern Tabasaran dil, see [Genko 2005: 233].
Similarly in Literary Tabasaran: tum {тум} with polysemy: 'seed / grain / ferment (for milk)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 283]. Distinct from literary dil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 148], which could, in fact, be a Northern form.
TAB_NOTES:
The Tabasaran word tum was borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
Uslar 1896: 568, 634. An important archaism which synchronically competes with tum 'seed (botanic) / posterity' [Uslar 1896: 555, 634], borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms. Distinct from Gyune cːil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Uslar 1896: 582].
The basic term for 'seed' in Literary Lezgi is the loanword tum {тум} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 315; Gadzhiev 1950: 761; Haspelmath 1993: 508, 526], although the inherited word fin {фин} 'seed' also exists [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 335]. Distinct from literary cːil {цил} 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358; Haspelmath 1993: 483].
Only the loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut tɨm 'seed' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111]. Khlyut ɨm < um is a late process, cf., e.g., inherited gɨm 'smoke'. Distinct from Khlyut cːil 'stone (of fruit)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 109].
Proto-Lezgian:*ɬːʷin2
NCED: 1021. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'seed' in Archi, on the one hand, and in one Nuclear Lezgian language (Lezgi), on the other. This word is also attested in Rutul with the meaning 'wheat' or 'barley' and in Kryts with the meaning 'flax' (Kryts xin 'flax' is quoted in [NCED: 1022]). From the distributional point of view, *ɬːʷin is the best candidate for the status of Proto-Lezgian 'seed'. External North Caucasian comparison supports such a reconstruction.
In Udi, *ɬːʷin was superseded with the form cil. Its Nuclear Lezgian cognates imply the Proto-Lezgian stem *tːil with the original meaning 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' (> Gyune Lezgi cːil 'id.', Northern Tabasaran dil 'id.', Aghul dil 'id.'), see [Alekseev 2008: 317].
In Caucasian Albanian, the word qʼar is attested for 'seed' with polysemy: 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic)'. Its only Lezgian cognate is the second component of the Udi compound iš-qːar 'men' (where iš is the singular form 'man' q.v.). The original meaning of Caucasian Albanian-Udi qʼar is not clear; it should be noted that the shift 'tribe, clan' > 'seed (botanic)' does not seem normal, whereas the opposite direction of semantic development is quite common.
In Mukhad Rutul, suk 'seed' is a recent introduction; the Proto-Rutul meaning of suk was apparently 'grain, a grain'.
In the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian lects, 'seed' is expressed with forms that have the general shape of tum, tuχum, or dene. The latter two are transparent Azerbaijani loanwords, whereas tum requires additional comments.
The most widespread shape of the word for 'seed' in Lezgian is actually tum, which means 'seed' in Nuclear Lezgian, but 'root' q.v. in Udi. Apparently proceeding from this fact (the semantic opposition between the Nuclear Lezgian and Udi meanings could be explained as a result of semantic evolution during long separate language development) and from some East Caucasian comparanda (first and foremost, Proto-Nakh *tɦum 'corn-cob; core of a plant'), the authors of [NCED] postulate the Proto-Lezgian term *tum(a) 'seed' and, further, the Proto-East Caucasian root *thʷǝ̆mV 'seed', considered to be an early borrowing from Iranian (Proto-Iranian *taukman ~ *tauxman 'seed', Avestan taoxman 'seed; kin', Persian tuxm 'seed; sperm; egg', etc.). As a particular result of this, there are two closely synonymous terms in Modern Azerbaijani: toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity' and tum 'seed (botanic); posterity'. The former represents a borrowing from Persian tuxm 'seed; kin', whereas the latter was borrowed from Lezgian languages. See [NCED: 991 f.]. Such a scenario faces several difficulties:
1) the hypothetical Proto-East Caucasian *thʷǝ̆mV 'seed' is too scantily attested in known languages, and its presumed original meaning 'seed' is only retained in Lezgian;
2) it is hard to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian term for 'seed' because of the "criss-crossed" situation where two roots enter into competition: *ɬːʷin (Archi, Lezgi) and *tum(a) (various Nuclear Lezgian lects);
3) both Azerbaijani words, tum and toxum, possess a number of derivative stems and do not look like recent introductions;
4) the normal direction of lexical borrowing is Azerbaijani/Iranian → Lezgian, but not vice versa. This particularly concerns the terms for 'seed' in Lezgian, which frequently represent Azerbaijani loanwords (toxum, dänä). The idea of borrowing of such a term from Lezgian into Azerbaijani is unlikely not only sociolinguistically, but also economically;
5) there are phonetically similar words for 'seed' in the neighboring Modern Iranian languages: Judeo-Tat, Muslim Tat tum 'seed (botanic)', Talysh tüm 'seed (botanic); seedling; clan, kin'. These forms regularly originate from Iranian *taukman ~ *tauxman, there is no need to treat them as Lezgian or Azerbaijani loanwords.
In the light of these points, the following scenario seems more likely:
1) both Azerbaijani toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity' and tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' have been borrowed from Iranian languages; the former is a Persian loanword (Persian tuxm 'seed; sperm; egg'), the latter is more recent, originating from Judeo-Tat, Muslim Tat tum 'seed (botanic)' or Talysh tüm 'seed (botanic); seedling; clan, kin' (note that in Northern Talysh the sound ü has a free variant u, thus it is not difficult to deduce Azerbaijani tum from Talysh). It is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 325] that the shape tum emerged as an inner Azerbaijani contraction of toxum, but such a solution is ad hoc;
2) Lezgian words for 'seed' of the shape tum originate from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from modern Iranian tum 'seed (botanic)';
3) Udi tum 'root (botanic); lineage, kin, clan; bottom' originates from the same source, although the semantic shift 'seed' > 'root' is an internal Udi innovation. The new Udi word for 'seed', cil, has been developed from the term for 'stone of fruit'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular except for the tense nː in Archi (which could be the result of secondary morphological reanalysis).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root in Proto-Lezgian, but a deverbative in Proto-North Caucasian (the starting point is the verb 'to sow'). The oblique stem is not reconstructible.
Gukasyan 1974: 48; Mobili 2010: 33. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. There exists also the syncopated masdar arstːun {арстIун} [Gukasyan 1974: 47; Mobili 2010: 33; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], which originates from *arc-sun with the regular development Cc-s > Cstː (see [Maisak 2008a: 151 f.]).
Gukasyan 1974: 48; Fähnrich 1999: 6; Dirr 1903: 55, 59, 60, 69, 71, 90; Schiefner 1863: 76; Schulze 2001: 249; Starchevskiy 1891: 488. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *arc-esun. As is accepted in [NCED: 282] (now followed by [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44]), the medial -r- in *arc- is to be interpreted as a fossilized durative/iterative infix infiltrated into the original root *ac-. Caucasian Albanian data confirm this analysis.
In [Schulze 2001: 249], the stem arc- is unlikely analyzed as *ar- 'to come (the past tense)' + *c 'to sit' (i.e. 'to sit' < *'he came and sat down'), based on an incorrect analysis of the Nidzh masdar arstːun (< *ar-d-sun, according to Schulze, but in fact regularly from *arc-sun, see above).
Caucasian Albanian: A synchronically suppletive paradigm: arec-a- (present) / ac-ar- (past) 'to sit / to sit down' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7]. The element -r(e)- in the present stem is a durative/iterative infix, the suffix -ar- is the past stem of the light verb -ar- 'came', see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 303; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560; Mikailov 1967: 97; Dirr 1908: 175, 221. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down / to stay, remain / to live (in general)'. Synchronically, a very irregular paradigm [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243], although all the variety of forms apparently originates from one archaic root.
As plausibly proposed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74 fn. 52], can be analyzed as the relict preverb qʼa 'down' (cf. the adverb qʼˈa-tːu 'down there' etc.) plus the verb ˈoqʼi- *'to sit', which lost its generic semantics in Modern Archi and narrowed its original meaning to 'to get onto a horse; to ripen' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 288]. Alternatively and less likely it is possible to treat qʼˈeˤyqʼi- as a reduplicated formation from the same verb ˈoqʼi-, thus [NCED: 648].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87; Saadiev 1994: 431, 434; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560. Initial äs= is apparently a fossilized rare spatial preverb. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Distinct, however, from paronymous qː=uqʼn- 'to sit down' [Saadiev 1994: 433] with the preverb qː= 'above, down'.
Authier 2009: 408. Paradigm: as=qʼʷan- [imperf.] / as=qʼʷa- [perf.]. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. It must be noted that in the Alyk verb the secondary suffix -n- is still restricted to the imperfective stem, whereas in Kryts proper it spread across the paradigm.
Meylanova 1984: 19; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Ablaut paradigm: a-l-qʼol- [imperf.] / aqʼul- [perf.] with the durative infix -l- in imperfective.
Both sources quote this verb as 'sit down', but the stative meaning 'to sit' is proved by textual examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 95 sub qʼanik; Talibov 2007: 79], etc. Also glossed as stative 'to sit' in [Meylanova 1984: 197; Talibov 2007: 229].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], 'to sit' is glossed as gišeǯi {гишеджи}, which in fact is the aorist form qːiše-ǯi {къишеджи} from the verb qː=iše- ~ qː=iši- 'to get onto a horse; to get on smth.' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Meylanova 1984: 89]. Apparently Comrie & Khalilov's gišeǯi 'to sit' is a mechanical citation of {Gišeǯi} - the first form quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88] in the list of Budukh forms sub 'to get onto a horse' (actually, initial {G-} denotes qː- in Kibrik & Kodzasov's transcriptions).
Distinct from the rare verb gʸ=iχ- {гихас} 'to sit down' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 874; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 119] (the only example found: "The eagle sat down on the rock" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 119]) and the frequent ilʸ=eχ- {алихас} 'to get on (horse, motorcycle); to fly (q.v.)' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 869; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 38].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229, 389; Ibragimov 1978: 194. Paradigm: s=iqʼ-u-r- [imperf., perf.] / s=iqʼ-as [inf.] / s=iqʼ-ä [imv.]. It should be noted that in [Ibragimov 1978: 194], an archaic infinitive form s=iqʼʷ-as with -qʼʷ- is quoted. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], erroneously quoted as s=uqʼ- {сукьун}. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Paradigm: s=i=r=qʼʷ-a-r- [imperf.] / s=iqʼ-u-r- [perf.] / s=iqʼʷ [imv.]. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. This verb is quoted with the meaning 'to sit down' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], but the lexical opposition 'to sit' : 'to sit down' is atypical for this region, thus we assume the aforementioned polysemy for Luchek s=iqʼʷ-.
RUT_NOTES:
Note the secondary loss of labialization of qʼʷ in the Modern Mukhad and Ixrek paradigms, due to analogical levelling after the regular perfective form s=iqʼ--u-.
Initial s= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165].
Suleymanov 2003: 217; Shaumyan 1941: 142. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Infixed imperfective stem: e-r-qʼʷ-a-.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug iqʼʷ-a-, Khpyuk uqʼ-a- 'to sit' [Suleymanov 1993: 138; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
AGX_NOTES:
Note the rare case of retention of the Lezgian imperfective infix -r- in the Gequn and Proper Aghul imperfective stem V-r-qʼʷ-a- (cf. [Suleymanov 1993: 138 f.]).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: d=ˈeʔ- 'to sit, sit down' [Uslar 1979: 665, 1005; Dirr 1905: 164, 242]. Cf. the class 2 form d=ˈepʼ- < *d=e-b-ʔ-. The Khanag prefixless verb ˈeʔ- possesses a more specific meaning: 'to sit in smth., sit down in smth. (e.g., in cart, boat, nest)' [Uslar 1979: 684]. Distinct from Khanag d=ˈus-, glossed as 'to stand (said of thing) / to squat, sit squatting (said of human) / to sit (said of bird)' in [Dirr 1905: 165], as 'to kneel / to stand (said of thing or animal)' in [Uslar 1979: 672].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: d=ˈeʔ- ~ d=ˈey- {депIюв, деюв} 'to sit' [Genko 2005: 59]. Distinct from Khyuryuk d=ˈus- {дубсув} 'to kneel' [Genko 2005: 61].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Two Kondik verbs are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] as synonyms for 'to sit down': č=ˈeʔ- and d=ˈus-, the difference is not explicated. Apparently d=ˈus- means specifically 'to sit down', whereas č=ˈeʔ- possesses a more generic meaning, see Common Tabasaran notes.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: č=ˈe- ~ čː=ˈe- {чеуб, ччеуб} 'to sit, sit down' [Genko 2005: 180]. Cf. another verb with a more specific meaning in the Eteg subdialect: d=ˈus- {дусуб} 'to sit down' [Genko 2005: 63].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: d=ˈe- {деуб} 'to sit, sit down' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 146, also 52 sub aywan, 249 sub parta, etc.]. Distinct from literary d=ˈus- {дубсуб} with polysemy: 'to stand smth. vertically (e.g., pole) / to squat down / to sit down (dialectal)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 150].
TAB_NOTES:
We presume that Tabasaran verbs which are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] for the concept 'to sit down' actually possess polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down', although it is very likely that Kibrik & Kodzasov's Kondik d=ˈus- means only 'to sit down', as proven by data from other Southern subdialects.
Uslar 1896: 329, 634. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Initial az= is a spatial prefix.
The same in Literary Lezgi: acː=ˈuqʼ- {ацукьун} 'to sit / to sit down' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 54; Gadzhiev 1950: 764, 766; Haspelmath 1993: 479, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 98].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqʼʷä-2
NCED: 647. Distribution: Retained as the basic root for 'to sit, to sit down' in Archi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. This root was lost in Udi and Tsakhur, whereas in Tabasaran, it survived as Khiv utʼ=uqʼ- 'to squeeze in(to); to prop up' [Genko 2005: 157], Literary utʼ=uqʼ- 'to stick in, sink in' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 300].
In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the root for 'to sit / to sit down' is ac-. As proposed in [NCED: 281], this form originates from *ʔosːV-, which is also attested in Tabasaran as d=ˈus- 'to squat (down), sit squatting; to sit down; to kneel'. For the sporadic affricate reflexes of the Proto-Lezgian tense fricatives in Udi see [NCED: 146]; Tabasaran lax s is, however, irregular in any case (the expected Northern Tabasaran reflex of *sː is sː). Such phonetic deviations, together with scant attestation of this root among Lezgian languages, makes the reconstruction of *ʔosːV- highly dubious. We prefer to regard Caucasian Albanian-Udi ac- and us- as unrelated forms, whose etymology is unclear.
In Tsakhur and Tabasaran, the old root for 'to sit' was superseded with *ʔeʔ(ʷ)Vr- [NCED: 409] - apparently an independent development in two individual Nuclear Lezgian languages. The exact original meaning of *ʔeʔ(ʷ)Vr- is unknown, because it seems lost in all other Lezgian lects; external North Caucasian comparison points to semantics of 'sitting' or similar states.
Replacements: {'to sit' > 'to stay, remain' > 'to live (in general)'} (Archi), {'to sit' > 'to squeeze in(to); to prop up'} (Khiv Tabasaran), {'to sit' > 'to stick in, sink in'} (Literary Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the -n and -l root extentions in Kryts and Budukh, respectively. The following Ablaut grades are attested in various languages: *ʔiqʼʷä- / *ʔäqʼʷä- / *ʔoqʼʷä-.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down' (this polysemy is retained in all or almost all the lects).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 295, 363; Mikailov 1967: 202. Polysemy: 'human skin / peel (of fruit)'; in [Dirr 1908: 162] only with the meaning 'peel, shell, bark'; in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97] apparently only with the meaning 'peel' (but there are no terms for 'human skin' in [Dirr 1908] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]). Distinct from various terms for 'hide', see [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40 f.; Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 145, 160]. In the 19th century probably with polysemy: 'skin / bark / peel', see notes on 'bark'.
It has been proposed by S. A. Starostin that Archi qal was borrowed from Avar qːal 'peel, shell, bark', but this scenario requires additional investigation. In any case, the meaning shift 'peel, bark' > 'skin' seems to be an inner Archi development; therefore, we treat qal 'skin' as a full-fledged item.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41; NCED: 756. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of large cattle'. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177] 'skin, hide' is glossed as ʁič {гъич}, which is an incorrect spelling for ʕič {гIич} 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40; Dirr 1913: 150, 227. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of small cattle'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:qʼabɨχ {кьабых}6
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177. Polysemy: 'bark (q.v.) / skin'. The word is borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark; shell', but it seems that the meaning 'skin' is an inner Gelmets development, therefore, we treat qʼabɨχ 'skin' as a full-fledged item (note that in principle the form is not very reliable, since it is attested only in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]).
Cf. ʁːekʷa 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40].
Dirr 1912: 157, 192; Ibragimov 1978: 186. Quoted as the generic term for 'skin' in [Dirr 1912] and [Ibragimov 1978: 186], although in [Ibragimov 1978: 143, 222] Mukhad liʔ is specified as 'hide' or 'hide of large cattle'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 166, 348; Ibragimov 1978: 197, 222. Polysemy: 'human skin / animal hide / water-skin' (note that in the main section of the dictionary [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006] qʼɨdiqʼ is glossed only as 'hide').
Luchek Rutul:
Not attested.
RUT_NOTES:
Muxrek dialect: both liʔ and qʼɨdɨqʼ are glossed as 'skin' without additional specifications [Ibragimov 1978: 186]; Shinaz dialect: läʔ 'hide' [Ibragimov 1978: 143]; Borch-Khnov dialect: liʔ 'skin' without additional specifications [Ibragimov 1978: 237, 239].
A poorly documented term; it is unclear how the Proto-Rutul word for 'skin' should be reconstructed.
Note the dissimilation qʼ- > qː- in Mukhad qːɨdɨqʼ.
Uslar 1979: 886, 995; Dirr 1905: 201, 231. This form is actually from the Khanag subdialect, not Dyubek. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of small cattle or wolf'. The same in the Khyuryuk and Kumi subdialects: qʼirˈiqʼ {кьирикь} 'skin; hide of small cattle' [Genko 2005: 107].
The proper Dyubek term for 'human skin' is unknown; cf. Dyubek qʼiyˈiqʼ-i, which is glossed only as 'hide of small cattle' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40] and 'hide of ram' in [Genko 2005: 106] (erroneously quoted as qʼiyˈiqʼ by Genko).
Genko 2005: 163. This form is actually from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'human skin' is unknown. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide (of goat and wild animals)'. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χam {хам} 'human skin / hide (e.g., of donkey)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 313].
Distinct from Kondik ʁiǯˈiqʼ 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40], Tinit qʼidiqʼ 'skin (not specified), hide' [Genko 2005: 106] (quoted by Genko as qʼidiyaʔ {кьидияъ}, apparently a typo for {кьидикь}).
TAB_NOTES:
It is unclear how the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'human skin' should be reconstructed: qʼidiqʼ (Northern dialect qʼiriqʼ) or χam (Southern dialect).
Uslar 1896: 570, 614. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide (e.g., of goat, wolf)'. Distinct from qür 'epidermis (of animal or snake)' [Uslar 1896: 482], li 'hide of large cattle' [Uslar 1896: 499], tumˈaǯ 'dressed hide (of goat or ram)' [Uslar 1896: 555] (the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani tumaǯ 'morocco').
The same in Literary Lezgi: χam {хам} 'human skin / animal hide' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 340; Gadzhiev 1950: 294; Haspelmath 1993: 511, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 326]. Distinct from literary li {ли} 'hide of large cattle' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 224].
Cf. in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qciqʼ 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40], liʔ 'hide of large cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: Various terms for 'human skin' normally display the polysemy 'human skin / a k. of animal hide' in attested Lezgian languages, and it seems that the meaning 'human skin' always represents a secondary development from 'a k. of hide' in any individual lect or a group of lects.
In a couple of cases, the synchronic meaning 'human skin' originates from 'bark'. Thus, in Gelmets Tsakhur, qʼabɨχ 'bark / skin' was borrowed from the Azerbaijani term for 'bark'; similarly, Archi qal 'human skin / peel (of a fruit) / bark' could theoretically be borrowed from the Avar term 'peel, bark'.
Ibragimov 1978: 114, 117. According to Ibragimov's glosses, this seems to be the generic term for both human and animal skin (polysemy: 'skin / water-skin'), although in [Dirr 1912: 165] qːɨdɨqʼ is translated as 'hide of ram'.
Dm. Ganenkov & T. Maisak, p.c.; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep / to fall asleep'. For lexicographic and morphological information see notes on 'to lie'. According to the textual corpus of the UdiLang project (http://udilang.narod.ru/index.html), the verb 'to lie' is the most frequent and default expression for 'to sleep' in Modern Nidzh.
There also exists a specific archaic expression nepː-aχ-e-sun {непIахесун}, which is translated as 'to sleep, to fall asleep' in [Gukasyan 1974: 179; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235; Mobili 2010: 219]. However, according to T. Maisak (p.c.), the complex verb nepː-aχ-e-sun rather means 'to fall asleep', whereas for the stative meaning 'to sleep, be asleep' the lexicalized adverb nepː-aχ-, modified with personal exponents and other verbal clitics, is used as predicate.
Gukasyan 1974: 179; Dirr 1903: 20, 46; Schulze 2001: 302. Polysemy: 'to sleep / to fall asleep'. Glossed only as 'to fall asleep' in [Fähnrich 1999: 24; Schiefner 1863: 97; Starchevskiy 1891: 485]. The verb bas-kː-esun 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *nepː-aχ-person, *nepː-aχ-e-sun, containing the Nidzh-Vartashen noun nepː 'dream; sleeping' [Gukasyan 1974: 179] and the light verb -e- 'to become' [Schulze 2005: 562 ff. (3.4.2.2 #11 ff.); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. As was plausibly proposed in [Schulze 2001: 302], -aχ is the dative-2 ending, modifying the noun nepː; Caucasian Albanian data support this solution. On the contrary, in [NCED: 273] -aχ- is interpreted as a verbal root, originating from the Proto-Lezgian verb *ʔaχär- 'to sleep'; such an analysis should currently be rejected. In any case, synchronically nepː is the main meaningful morpheme in this verbal stem.
Caucasian Albanian: nepʼ-aq bu-, literally 'to be (bu-) in sleeping (nepʼ-aq)', -aq is the dative-3 ending, modifying the noun nepʼ [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-32]. The verb bas-kʼ-esun 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 169; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 194, 382; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235; Dirr 1908: 129, 222. Formed with the perfective stem of the verb =ˈaχa- 'to lie' q.v. [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 102] and the light verb =ke- 'to become' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 100 ff.; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 78]. The literal meaning of ˈaχu-ke- is something like 'to become lying'. The plain verb =ˈaχa- 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'. Pace [NCED: 264], =ˈaχa- 'to lie' and ˈaχu-ke- can hardly represent two etymologically different roots.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235. The future stem is ʁalʸ=ix-az; other forms are unknown.
TKR_NOTES:
The external Lezgian etymology suggests that Mishlesh qː=iːsan- reflects the Proto-Tsakhur verb 'to sleep', whereas the primary meaning of ʁilʸ=ex- (Mikik, Gelmets) was 'to lie, lie down (sg. subj.)'; afterwards, this verb underwent the areal isogloss of polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'.
Initial qː= and double ʁ=Vlʸ= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 125; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
The same in the Duldug subdialect: ʁ=arχ-a- 'to sleep' [Shaumyan 1941: 190] (apparently an error for ʁ=arx-a-).
Differently in the Tsirkhe subdialect: aχ-a- 'to sleep' [Shaumyan 1941: 190].
AGX_NOTES:
The prefixless verb aχ-a- is the likeliest Proto-Aghul term for 'to sleep' (retained in this meaning in Burshag Koshan, Gequn as well as the Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul), perhaps with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep' (as in Burshag Koshan and Gequn). Other attested verbs for 'to sleep' are secondary prefixed formations on the basis of verbal roots for 'to fall'. Further see notes on 'to lie'.
The same root in the Khanag subdialect: aχ-ˈ 'to sleep' [Uslar 1979: 570, 1006; Dirr 1905: 155, 243]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aχ-ˈ {абхув, аххув} 'to sleep' [Genko 2005: 12] (tense χː {хх} is Genko's typo under the influence of the following entry).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: aχ-ˈ {ахуб} 'to sleep' [Genko 2005: 21]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: aχ-ˈ {абхув} 'to sleep' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 45].
TAB_NOTES:
Initial ɢaʔ(V)= (i.e. ɢa=ʔ(a)=), a= (i.e. ʔa=) are spatial prefixes.
The same in Literary Lezgi: k=su- [imperf.] / k=sa- [perf.] / k=sus [redupl. imv.] {ксун} 'to sleep; to fall asleep' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 164; Gadzhiev 1950: 806; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 365].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔasʷɨn- ~ *ʔasːʷɨn-1
NCED: 1037. Distribution: Retained in the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch and two Nuclear Lezgian languages: Tsakhur, Lezgi. Further see notes on 'to lie'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular; the root is poorly attested, therefore, the exact shape of the protoform cannot be reconstructed: the first vowel (*a?) and the sibilant tenseness are unclear. Note the fossilized class prefix b= in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
Distinct from mal {мал} 'few, a few' [Gukasyan 1974: 169; Mobili 2010: 205]; Gukasyan and Mobili gloss this as 'small; a few', although the Azerbaijani translation and examples cited point to the meaning 'few, a few' (in [Gukasyan 1974: 271], however, mal is quoted as a Nidzh counterpart of Vartashen kːicːi 'small'); glossed as 'few, a little' in [Schulze 2001: 296b]; glossed as 'wenig' in [Schiefner 1863: 104] (thus a Nidzh-Vartashen form); this cannot be a recent borrowing from Russian malɨy 'small', malo 'a few' because of the presence of Caucasian Albanian mal 'small'.
Distinct from the less generic term χuri ~ χuru {хури, хуру} 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' [Gukasyan 1974: 226; Mobili 2010: 152; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Distinct from marginal pːatːar {пIатIар} 'small, little; a few' [Gukasyan 1974: 192; Mobili 2010: 238] (application of this adjective is unknown) < Modern Georgian pʼatʼar-a 'small'.
Gukasyan 1974: 143, 271; Mobili 2010: 174; Fähnrich 1999: 20; Schiefner 1863: 82; Schulze 2001: 292. A close synonym is more rare (or archaic?) kːicːkːe [Fähnrich 1999: 20; Schiefner 1863: 83; Schulze 2001: 292].
In fact, there also exists the word micːikː 'small' [Fähnrich 1999: 23; Starchevskiy 1891: 493], which corresponds to the Nidzh term.
UDI_NOTES:
An unclear situation. Nidzh-Vartashen micːikː is etymologically obscure, whereas Vartashen kːicːi is compared to Lezgian and North Caucasian words for 'puppy' in [NCED: 692]. It is quite unclear, however, whether the semantic shift 'puppy' > 'small' is possible.
A different solution is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 292]. According to Schulze, Vartashen kːicːkːe was borrowed from Persian kuːčak 'small; young' (which, in fact, originates from a certain descendant of Turkic *kičük 'small'); afterwards, the final consonant of kːicːkːe was reanalyzed as the Iranian diminutive suffix -k and loped off; the word kːicːi emerged as a result of this transformation. First, it should be noted that, from a phonetic point of view, Azerbaijani kičik 'small' (< Proto-Turkic *kičük) could be a more appropriate source of borrowing of the Udi word (although the substitution Azerbaijani č > Udi cː seems illogical). Next, in the case of morphological re-analysis of a loanword, this process is normally based on the grammatical patterns of the target language; re-analysis according to the grammatical patterns of the source language is typologically quite rare. Furthermore, Schulze explains the Nidzh (in fact Nidzh-Vartashen) form micːikː as the second element of an unattested rhyming reduplication **kːicːikː-micːikː, which seems ad hoc. We prefer to treat both Nidzh-Vartashen micːikː and Vartashen kːicːi as unetymologizable formations of unknown origin.
Caucasian Albanian: A good candidate is mal [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-29], which is attested in the meaning 'a few' (Jo. 6.7 "Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient (mal) for them"), as temporary 'a little while' (Jo. 12.35, etc.), in the meaning 'young, junior' (Mt. 10.42 "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones (mal) a cup of cold water only", Mk. 15.40 "Mary the mother of James the Less (mal) and of Joses, and Salome") and in the following context, which is the most significant: Mt. 5.19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least (mal) commandments, and shall teach so, he shall be called the least (mal) in the kingdom of heaven". No other candidates for generic 'small' are known from the palimpsests.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 326, 366; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583; Mikailov 1967: 199; Dirr 1908: 185, 213. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], there is also a corrupted variant tʼi-dːu-class {тиддут}. Regular participle from the stative verb tʼi 'to be small'. Widely applicable.
Distinct from the less generic and less frequent term muqˤˈu '(to be) small in size, fine (Russian: мелкий)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 282].
Distinct from ħokʼˈo 'small' [Chumakina et al. 2007] and ħokʼˈo-tːu-class [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 243, 366; Chumakina et al. 2007] (both are apparently rare, at least the latter is considered a nursery word).
Authier 2009: 69, 71, 72, 204, 287, 298, 311, 393. Widely applicable. A close synonyms is sinkʼala [Authier 2009: 69, 119, 180, 356]. The semantic difference between two adjectives is unclear, but the former is less frequent according to examples in [Authier 2009].
Meylanova 1984: 109, 220; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583. Polysemy: 'small, little / a little, a few'.
Distinct from the less generic term gǝrmǝ {гарма} 'small in size (Russian: мелкий), fine' [Meylanova 1984: 35; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
The second, less generic and less frequent term is χuru-n ~ χoru-n 'shallow; small (in size); younger' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890] (not found in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010]; an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: kʼɨnʸɨ-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237]. Occasional assimilation < *kʼɨlʸɨ-n. Distinct from the less generic term χuru-n, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Dirr 1913: 178, 229. Polysemy: 'small / younger / a few'. Cf. examples for the meaning 'small': "There is a flowing small spring" [Dirr 1913: 20], "small garden" [Dirr 1913: 25], "The young one must keep silent, when elders speak" [Dirr 1913: 32], "small man, small woman, small horse, small house" [Dirr 1913: 178], "Your small village is very small" [Dirr 1913: 210].
Distinct from the less generic term χuru-n, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?). According to the data in [Dirr 1913], χuru-n is an infrequent term, and the two attested examples point to the meaning 'young' rather than 'small': "small/young snakes" [Dirr 1913: 127, 130], "Children of my friends are still young/little" [Dirr 1913: 212].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Magometov 1970: 170. In [Suleymanov 2003: 42], however, this Burshag adjective is quoted as wicʼi-r.
Cf. the forms from other subdialects: Arsug ucʼi-d 'small' [Magometov 1970: 231 sentences 2, 19], Khudig acʼi-d 'small' [Magometov 1970: 48] (both forms are also quoted in [Suleymanov 2003: 42] without subdialectal specification).
In [Shaumyan 1941: 155], Burshag, Arsug and Khudig words for 'small' are quoted as ucʼi-r, ucʼi-d, but this seems to be an inaccuracy.
Suleymanov 2003: 42; Shaumyan 1941: 155. Polysemy: 'small / younger'. The same in the Duldug and Kurag subdialects: bicʼi-f 'small' [Shaumyan 1941: 155; Magometov 1970: 49].
Note the form in the Tsirkhe subdialect: icʼi-f 'small' [Magometov 1970: 214 sentence 18; Shaumyan 1941: 155].
AGX_NOTES:
The relationship between forms with b- (the bulk of the dialects) and without b- (all Koshan subdialects and the neighboring Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul) is unclear. The inconsistency of the forms in three Koshan subdialects is also rather suspicious.
Nevertheless, all the aforementioned forms are most probably related. It is possible that b- is an old fossilized class exponent, absent in Koshan, cf. [NCED: 287].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Genko 2005: 30. The variant with lax -čʼʷ- is from [Genko 2005].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: bicʼˈi with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Uslar 1979: 615, 997; Dirr 1905: 158, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Genko 2005: 30].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Genko 2005: 30]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 87].
TAB_NOTES:
Labialization of the Dyubek affricate čʼːʷ ~ čʼʷ is etymologically unclear.
Uslar 1896: 384, 616. Polysemy: 'small / younger'. Distinct from the less generic Gyune term kːülˈü 'small in size, fine (Russian: мелкий)' [Uslar 1896: 456].
The same in Literary Lezgi: ʁʷečʼˈi {гъвечIи} 'small / younger' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 93; Gadzhiev 1950: 345; Haspelmath 1993: 490, 526]. This is the most generic and frequent term for 'small' in the literary language. Distinct from bicʼˈi {бицIи} 'small, tiny' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 66; Haspelmath 1993: 483] (may actually be a borrowing from Aghul-Tabasaran bicʼi 'small' q.v.) and kːülˈü {куьлуь} 'small, tiny' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 169; Haspelmath 1993: 495].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut ʁʷačːˈi 'small' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237]. Distinct from the less generic Khlyut term čːülˈü, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].
Proto-Lezgian:*kʼɨʔʷV6
NCED: 726. Distribution: This word is very unstable. The Proto-Lezgian terms cannot be reconstructed with certainty. Cf. the following roots attested in individual languages with the meaning 'small'.
*kʼɨʔʷV- [NCED: 726]: this root means 'small' in Rutul and probably in Tsakhur, if Tsakhur kʼɨlʸi- is indeed to be analyzed as suffixed kʼɨ-lʸi- (not a productive pattern). It is proposed in [NCED] to compare *kʼɨʔʷV- with the Archi nursery word ħokʼo 'small' via metathesis, but the Archi reflex of the laryngeal is quite irregular (the expected Archi form should be **hokʼo). Cf. also the Budukh adverb kʼibe-kʼibe 'a bit' [Meylanova 1984: 98] (if to be analyzed as suffixed kʼi-be).
*tʼi- [NCED: 1001]: the Archi stative verb 'to be small', it is also attested in Lezgi as the adverb tʼi-mil 'a few'. As proposed in [NCED], the Nidzh Udi form tːilin with the presumable meaning 'small', attested in the expression tːilin kːäšä 'little finger' [Gukasyan 1974: 209] ('little finger' is normally expressed as 'small' + 'finger' among the Lezgian languages), might contain the same root *tʼi-. This could be decisive evidence for the reconstruction of Proto-Lezgian *tʼi- 'small', but the morphological analysis of the Udi form as tːi-li-n with a double suffix does not seem reliable (the suffix -li- is very rare, if it exists at all). Synchronically, Udi tːilin kːäšä looks like a genitive compound 'finger (kːäšä) of tːil' (for this morphological pattern see [Schulze 2005: 131 (3.2.2.3 #5)]). The meaning of the hypothetical tːil is, however, unclear; it cannot be a cognate of Proto-Nuclear Lezgian *tʼɨl (~ -o-) 'finger' [NCED: 1002], because the Udi form is expected to be **tːul in such a case.
*sːɨlä- [NCED: 963]: means 'small' in Kryts; its Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'light (in weight)'.
*mikʼʷV- (~ -e-) [NCED: 821]: means 'small' in Budukh; its Proto-Lezgian meaning could be 'young' (as suggested by the Rutul cognate and external North Caucasian comparanda).
The Aghul and Tabasaran terms for 'small' go back to *pːacʼV-y [NCED: 287], whose original meaning could indeed have been 'goatling' or 'small sheep' (retained in Lezgi, Rutul, Tsakhur). Thus, the development 'goatling' > 'small' is to be postulated for Aghul-Tabasaran (it should be noted that the Koshan Aghul forms without the initial labial are inexplicable).
In Udi and Caucasian Albanian, etymologically unclear terms micːikː, kːicːi, mal are attested in the meaning 'small'. Vartashen Udi kːicːi 'small' is compared to Proto-Lezgian *kicʼ / *cʼik in [NCED: 692], whose original meaning was 'puppy'; the shift 'puppy' > 'small' could be the same as in Aghul-Tabasaran ('goatling' > 'small').
In Lezgi, the etymologically unclear form ʁʷačʼi 'small' is attested.
Tentatively, we choose *kʼɨʔʷV as the Proto-Lezgian stem for 'small'.
Replacements: {'light (in weight)' > 'small'} (Kryts), {'puppy' > 'small'(?)} (Vartashen Udi), {'goatling' > 'small'(?)} (Aghul, Tabasaran). Reconstruction shape: Metathesis and the pharyngeal fricative in the Archi nursery word are irregular. Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be small'.
Построить дерево