There are two documented expressions for 'all':

    1) li-der-(u) [class 1, 2, 4] / lo-der-(u) [3, 5], which is quoted as the only equivalent for 'all (omnis)' in [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 161; Bokarev 1961: 173]. The plural forms 'all (omnis)' are given as regular li-der-ar [human pl.] / lo-der-ar [non-human pl.] in [Isakov & Khalilov 2012], but as li-der-ol in [Bokarev 1961]. This is the present participle in -der of the generic verb 'to be' [van den Berg 1995: 99 ff.], i.e., 'all' as 'whoever/whatever) being'. It should be noted that in [van den Berg 1995: 314], li-der-u is translated as 'every, each'.

    2) seh / setʼ (with unclear distribution of variants), which is quoted for 'all (omnis / totus)' in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 148; van den Berg 1995: 332]. The examples are: “She made them take off all their upper clothes” [van den Berg 1995: 246], “All the animals have come” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 148].

    We have to treat li-der- and seh as synonyms.

    Several terms for 'all' are listed in [Khalilov 1995: 300, 401]. Out of them, the adjective qʼacʼː-o is the most frequently used one, as follows from browsing through [Khalilov 1995]. Cf. the examples for attributive use: “to find out all the circumstances” [Khalilov 1995: 31], “In summer, the cattle are all in the mountains”, “All the books are mine” [Khalilov 1995: 153]. Non-attributive use: “There was room for all (of them)” [Khalilov 1995: 118], “All (i.e., everybody) have got their shares” [Khalilov 1995: 215], “All (i.e., everything) will be all right” [Khalilov 1995: 217].

    A second candidate is the non-inflected form setʼ {сетI} [Khalilov 1995: 228] with the following examples quoted in the main entry: “All the children have come”, “All (i.e., everybody) are singing the song”, “All (i.e., everybody) have stopped talking”.

    A third candidate is the adjective gäːh-iy-o {га̄ьгьийо} [Khalilov 1995: 59, 401; Madieva 1965: 103], but normally it is used in non-attributive function: “All (of them) have gone to the cinema”, “All (of them) have books” [Khalilov 1995: 59]. gäːh-iy-o is derived from gäh-iy-o 'existing' [Khalilov 1995: 58] with the iterative infix -a- (gäh-iy-o is the participle from the auxiliary present stem gey 'to be' [Khalilov 1995: 59], although the vowel change e ~ ä is abnormal).

    Distinct from siyo-nazu 'everything, each' [Khalilov 1995: 229], sukʼo-nazu 'everybody, each' [Khalilov 1995: 233] with interrogative siyo 'what', sukʼo 'who' q.v. and the special generalizing element -na-zu.

    Other candidates are seh 'all' [Khalilov 1995: 228] and qʼacʼː-o 'all' [M. Khalilov, p.c.], but these forms are apparently more marginal than gälːö, because seh and qʼacʼː-o are not mentioned in [Kibrik & Testelets 2004].

    Distinct from sukʼo-nazu 'each, every' [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 249] with interrogative sukʼo 'who' q.v. and the special generalizing element -na-zu.

    A second, apparently more marginal candidate is naːsi-n {на̄син} 'all (omnis) / all (totus)' [Khalilov 1999: 197, 312, 440; Imnaishvili 1963: 130], derived from the interrogative pronoun naːsi 'which (one)?' [Khalilov 1999: 197] with the particle -n (for which cf. [Imnaishvili 1963: 265]).

    Borrowed pronouns are used as well: kinaw-ni 'all' [Khalilov 1999: 140, 312; Imnaishvili 1963: 133] < Avar kina-w-go 'all'; šinaw 'every, all' [Khalilov 1999: 291; Imnaishvili 1963: 133] < Avar šːina-w 'every, all'.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: golːu-č {голлуч} 'all' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 165]. Consists of the present participle golːu (< *gol-y-u) from the auxiliary present stem gol-i 'to be' [Khalilova 2009: 182] plus the polyfunctional suffix -č, which, in particular, forms collective numerals [Khalilova 2009: 177].

    Replacements: {'to be' > 'all'} (Bezhta proper, Tlyadal Bezhta, Khwarshi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for some vowel fluctuation.

    Semantics and structure: Verbal participle.

    Distinct from čʼečʼa {чIечIа} 'soot; thin crust of ice over snow' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 396].

    Quite differently in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207], where čʼečʼa is proposed as the basic word for 'ashes', whereas noƛu (sic!) is specified as 'fine ashes (пепел)'. Apparently a mass of errors.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: yõƛu {йо^нлIу} 'ashes' [Karimova 2014].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the occasional shift of nasalization between the vowel and the initial glide.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.

    Distinct from qal {хъал} 'peel, bark' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 166, 207; Bokarev 1961: 167], borrowed from Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.

    Distinct from qʼeqʼel-ba {къекъелба} 'birch bark' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 98, 190], final -ba is the plural exponent; it must be noted that in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 101] the dialectal variant ƛʼeqʼel-ba {кьекъелба} (village Garbutl) is quoted, which seems to be a graphical corruption (Cyrillic {ь} for {ъ}).

    There are three documented terms for 'bark':

    1) derived term y=ic-al-o;

    2) primary stem beš {беш} with polysemy: 'bark / shell / skin' [Khalilov 1995: 45, 311; Madieva 1965: 150];

    3) borrowed term qal {хъал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel / skin' [Khalilov 1995: 259, 311; Madieva 1965: 190] < Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.

    Provisionally we choose y=ic-al-o as the basic Bezhta proper term, because there are two textual examples for it: “dry bark”, “to peel bark from tree” [Khalilov 1995: 123]. Only one example is available for qal: “thin bark” [Khalilov 1995: 259], and no examples for beš. It should be noted that beš is the basic term for 'human skin' q.v.

    Distinct from ƛʼeqʼa {кьекъа} 'patch (a piece of cloth)' [Khalilov 1995: 163].

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 412], ricalo is also quoted as one of the Khoshar-Khota terms for 'bark' (directly corresponds to Bezhta proper y=ic-al-o).

    There are two Tlyadal terms for 'bark', quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] as synonyms: ƛʼeqʼä and qar. Additionally, M. Khalilov (p.c.) quotes the Avar loanword qal 'bark'.

    A second term is the borrowing qal {хъал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel / layer, coat / skin' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 358, 456] < Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.

    Distinct from ƛʼiqʼin {кьикъин} 'birch bark' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 228; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    Distinct from the borrowed term qal {хъал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel / layer, coat / skin' [Khalilov 1999: 251, 334] < Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.

    Distinct from the more specific term meču {мечу} 'birch bark' [Khalilov 1999: 189, 334].

    Distinct from the more specific term čʼita 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: qʼʷelʸ {къвел} 'bark' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16, 68].

    'Bark' is a less stable item in East Tsezic. The match between Hunzib r=ič-ul and Bezhta proper y=ic-al-o plus Khoshar-Khota Bezhta r=ic-al-o, derived from the verb 'to peel' (< Proto-Tsezic *class=ič- 'to peel, take off skin' [NCED: 265]) with the non-productive l-suffix, suggests that this deverbative should be the Proto-East stem for 'bark'. In the Khoshar-Khota-Tlyadal cluster, it was superseded with *ƛʼeqʼV, whose original Proto-Bezhta meaning was 'patch' (as follows from the Bezhta proper data). Further to the suffixed Hinukh stem ƛʼiqʼi-n 'birch bark'. No East Caucasian etymology. In many lects, inherited forms tend to be superseded with the Avar loanword (Hunzib proper, Bezhta proper, Hinukh, Kidero Dido, Sagada Dido, Inkhokwari Khwarshi).

    Replacements: {'bark' > 'crust'} (Hunzib proper), {'to peel' > 'bark'} (Hunzib proper, Bezhta proper, Khoshar-Khota Bezhta), {'skin' > 'bark'} (Bezhta proper), {'patch' > 'bark'} (Khoshar-Khota Bezhta, Tlyadal Bezhta).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem quite regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.

    Distinct from ɬili ~ ɬüli {лъили, лъили} with polysemy: 'belly / stomach / bosom (as in “in one's bosom”)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 248, 440], which is applicable specifically to humans and seems to be more rare than aχ.

    Distinct from ɬara {лъара} with polysemy: 'belly / bosom (as in "in one's bosom")' [Khalilov 1999: 171, 324], which is applicable specifically to humans and seems to be used more rarely than aχ.

    Distinct from bačʼʷa-hala 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: ãχ ~ ãχˤ {а^нх} 'belly' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16]. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach'. The variant ãχˤ is from [Khalilova 2009].

    The root *ʔǝ̃χː (~ ʁ), attested as the Common Bezhta term for 'belly', seems isolated in Tsezic; for possible external comparanda see [NCED: 676].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root with polysemy: 'belly / stomach'.

    Distinct from the more specific term iχ-y-u {ихйу} 'large, massive' [Khalilov 1999: 130].

    Distinct from the more specific term iχ-a-w {ихав} 'large, massive' [Abdulaev 2014].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=uqʼːˤ-u ~ class=uqʼˤ-u {лʼукъкъуI} 'big' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16].

    In Hinukh and Dido, *class=uqʼˤV was superseded with *class=iˤžV ~ -žː- B [NCED: 653], whose original meaning was something like 'many, numerous' vel sim., cf. sub 'many'. Apparently, parallel contact-driven introductions in Hinukh and Dido may be suspected.

    Replacements: {'big' > 'many'} (Kidero Dido, Sagada Dido).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the root vowel in Hunzib.

    Semantics and structure: Primary adjective root.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: kʼuca ~ kʼɨca {кIуца} 'bird' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 7]. In [Karimova 2014], only kʼuca is quoted.

    The formal match between Bezhta mihna 'bird' and Hinukh mihna 'small bird / young of animal' makes *mihnV the main candidate for the status of Proto-Tsezic. In Hunzib, this stem is reflected as mina 'young of animal (incl. nestling)' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 123]. Probably one should reconstruct *mihnV with Proto-Tsezic polysemy: 'small bird / young of animal', retained in Hinukh, but eliminated in different ways in Bezhta and Hunzib. No North Caucasian external etymology for Proto-Tsezic *mihnV is available. It must be noted that theoretically *mihnV with the meaning '(small) bird' can only be an East Tsezic feature, whereas Hinukh mihna 'small bird / young of animal' arose under the influence of East Tsezic.

    In other languages, three different forms for '(small) bird' are used; each of them seems to be isolated in Tsezic:

    1) Hunzib čʼeq < Proto-Tsezic *čʼeq < North Caucasian 'a kind of small bird' [NCED: 1105].

    2) Dido aʁi with a very weak external (Avar) comparandum [NCED: 511]; pace [NCED: 511], Hunzib ãχ 'bird' does not exist.

    3) Khwarshi kʼeca < Proto-Tsezic *kʼɨca (~ -i-) < North Caucasian 'a kind of small bird' [NCED: 442].

    Replacements: {'a kind of small bird' > 'bird'} (Hunzib, Khwarshi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root with polysemy: 'small bird / young of animal'.

    Distinct from gɑ̃žu y=ɑhu 'to bite', applied specifically to dogs [van den Berg 1995: 297], literally 'to take away the fang' with gɑ̃žu 'animal fang' and class=ɑhu 'to take away, take off, seize' [van den Berg 1995: 284].

    Cf. the parallel expression sila y=aʁo {сила йагъал} 'to bite off' [Khalilov 1995: 230], literally 'to take out the tooth' with class=aʁo 'to take out' [Khalilov 1995: 105].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: han {гьа^нна} 'to bite' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 255]. Applied to both humans and animals (e.g., a dog).

    Replacements: {'to beat the tooth to/for smth.' > 'to bite'} (Hunzib); {'to put the tooth' > 'to bite'} (Bezhta).

    Reconstruction shape: The irregular correspondence -n (Dido, Khwarshi) ~ -l (Hinukh) remains inexplicable, although there is little doubt that the attested West Tsezic forms are related to each other. If the external etymology proposed in [NCED: 625] is correct (< North Caucasian *=iʡʷVl), *heˤl- is the original Proto-Tsezic variant retained in Hinukh, although it is actually *heˤn- that shows a broader distribution (Dido, Khwarshi).

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal stem.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: kaˤba {каIба} 'black' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 8].

    1) *cʼǝdV-l- [NCED: 379], meaning 'black' in East Tsezic (Hunzib, Bezhta), lost in West Tsezic;

    2) *kaˤba, meaning 'black' in West Tsezic (Hinukh, Dido, Khwarshi), lost in East Tsezic.

    Since *cʼǝdV-l- has promising external comparanda (Andian 'blackberry', Dargi 'black'), whereas *kaˤba has no North Caucasian etymology, *cʼǝdV-l- can be postulated with more probability as the Proto-Tsezic term for 'black'.

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Adjective stem with the common l-suffix.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: ẽqʼo ~ ẽqʼˤo {э^нкъо} 'blood' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 5, 16]. The variant ẽqʼˤo is from [Khalilova 2009].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the unclear element -qʼʷa ~ -qʼo in Khwarshi, which is either a unique suffix or an unknown root, compounded with *ħɔ̃y.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *ħẽyɑ-.

    A second candidate is qʼʷaqʼu {къвакъу} 'bone' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 213, 457]; the difference between ƛužey and qʼʷaqʼu is unclear, but the latter seems more marginal, because it is missing from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. The same word with loss of labialization is documented as qʼaqʼu {къакъу}, which is glossed as 'collarbone' in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 211] and as 'round end of bone' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 38].

    Distinct from ƛuza, obl. ƛuza- {лIуза}, glossed in [Khalilov 1999: 180] as generic 'bone', but marked as rarely used; on the contrary, in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 38], ƛuza is quoted as a generic term for 'tubular bone'.

    It is likely that the analysis in [Khalilov 1999] is more correct, implying that in Proto-Dido, ƛuza was the basic term for 'bone', but currently it is being superseded by qʼ(ʷ)ˤaqʼu.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: ƛozol {лIозол} 'bone' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 5].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the consonant metathesis in the oblique stem.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *ƛʷɨrV-zV-, which was eliminated, i.e., levelled after the direct stem in East Tsezic (Hunzib, Bezhta). In West Tsezic (Hinukh, Dido, Khwarshi), oblique *ƛʷɨrV-zV- was metathesized > *ƛʷɨzV-rV-, whereupon the direct stems in individual lects were levelled: Hinukh ƛužey, Kidero Dido ƛuza are back-formations; Khwarshi proper ƛazal, Inkhokwari Khwarshi ƛozol continue oblique *ƛʷɨzV-rV-. It is interesting that due to the Sagada Dido direct stem ƛurza, which directly goes back to oblique *ƛʷɨrV-zV-, this metathesis in the oblique stem *ƛʷɨrV-zV- > *ƛʷɨzV-rV- cannot be projected onto the Proto-West Tsezic level - more likely, we are dealing with late contact-driven rebuildings of the paradigm in individual West Tsezic lects. Cf. similar rebuildings of the original paradigm in the words for 'eye', 'hand' q.v.

    Distinct from the nursery word nene {нене} with polysemy: 'female breast / udder' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 132, 197; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; van den Berg 1995: 321; Bokarev 1961: 162].

    Distinct from χɨmǝr {хымǝр} 'brisket' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 165; van den Berg 1995: 341].

    Distinct from the more rare term χomaː {хома̄}, glossed as 'breast, thoracic cage' in [Khalilov 1995: 256], not quoted in [Madieva 1965].

    Distinct from tʼum 'female breast' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 340, 432; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22].

    Distinct from the nursery word kiki {кики} 'female breast' [Khalilov 1999: 139, 317; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22].

    Distinct from nursery kaka 'female breast' [Bokarev 1959: 147].

    Distinct from the nursery word koko 'female breast / nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Bokarev 1959: 147, 149, 151].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: humo-lokʼo {гьу^нмолокIо} 'breast' [Karimova 2014].

    Additionally, in Hinukh, the form ʁomo 'udder' is attested [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 131]; it is probably related to the discussed forms and therefore could represent borrowing in the opposite direction: Bezhta > Hinukh (although no such forms are attested in Bezhta).

    A second candidate for Proto-Tsezic 'breast' is *χeru A [NCED: 465], which means 'breast' in all East Tsezic lects (can be safely postulated as the Proto-East Tsezic term for this meaning) and in one of the West Tsezic lects, namely Khwarshi proper, where the compound ħele-lokʼʷa, literally '*χeru-heart' is used. At first sight, *χeru has the advantage over *χɨmV(-rV) from the distributional point of view, but in fact it is hard to suppose that *χeru was the Proto-West Tsezic term for 'breast', which only survived in Khwarshi proper, having been superseded in the rest of the lects.

    Since *χɨmV(-rV) possesses very good external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'breast' [NCED: 829], we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with *χɨmV(-rV). The Proto-Tsezic or at least Proto-West Tsezic meaning of the competing term *χeru is unclear. Its 'non-breast' semantics is attested in Dido proper (ħiro 'shoulder'); on the other hand, external North Caucasian comparanda point to a meaning like 'udder' [NCED: 465]. The use of *χeru in the Khwarshi proper compound for 'breast' remains inexplicable, but we suppose that it is a secondary phenomenon.

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root, optionally modified with the suffix -rV.

    Cf. the more specific verb ɬehe {лъегьа} 'to burn (intrans.)' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 197; van den Berg 1995: 315; Bokarev 1961: 160, 173], application is unknown.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=okʼ ~ class=okʼ-χ {локIа, локIха} 'to burn' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 85, 246, 275, 338].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Either the labile verbs *class=ekʼʷV, with polysemy 'to burn (intrans.) / to burn (trans.)' already in Proto-Tsezic, or the causative *class=ekʼʷV-l is to be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic (later, the Proto-Tsezic causative exponent -l was replaced by synchronic causative suffixes in Hunzib and Khwarshi).

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: munu {муну} 'fingernail' [Karimova 2014].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the nasal assimilation l > n in Inkhokwari Khwarshi and the vowel i in Bezhta due to influence of the oblique stem.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *mɨˤʫa A.

    Distinct from the specific term žanʁi {жангъи} 'fog' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 166, 535].

    Cf. also kutʼi, which is glossed with polysemy 'fog / smoke' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205], but only as 'smoke' in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 208].

    Cf. also gutʼ, which is glossed with polysemy 'fog / smoke' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205], but only as 'smoke' in [Khalilov 1999: 87].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: as {ас} with polysemy: 'cloud / sky' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 110, 265].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=ucʼː-u {луцIцIу} 'cold' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 104, 301]. Applied to both objects and weather.

    Reconstruction shape: Some phonetic outcomes are irregular: čʼ instead of expected cʼ in Hinukh, cʼ instead of expected čʼ in Khwarshi.

    Semantics and structure: Participle with the regular y-suffix from the stative verb *class=ɔčʼ(V)- 'to be cold, become cold', which is retained as a synchronic verb at least in Kwantlada Khwarshi.

    Distinct from n=ǝː [class 1] / n=iː [2] / n=uː [4, pl.] {нǝа, ниа, нуа} 'to come (here)' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 226; van den Berg 1995: 33, 78, 322, 353; Bokarev 1961: 162, 179]. Originates from something like *nV=class=ǝ; initial n= is a fossilized directional prefix [van den Berg 1995: 353].

    Semantic or pragmatic difference between class=ãqʼe and n=ǝː is unclear, the latter seems to be missing from the main section of [Isakov & Khalilov 2001].

    Cf. with another directional prefix: g=ǝː [1] / g=iː [2] / g=uː [4, pl.] {гува} 'to come down (of precipitation)' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 56; van den Berg 1995: 299, 353]; < *gV=class=ǝ; g= is a fossilized directional prefix 'down' [van den Berg 1995: 353]. It should be noted that for the Naxada dialect, g=ǝː is glossed as generic 'to come (here)' [van den Berg 1995: 299, 353].

    Distinct from the imperative t=ǝs [1] / t=is [2] / t=us [4, pl.] 'come with me! / come to me!' [van den Berg 1995: 336, 353; Bokarev 1961: 165] with another fossilized directional prefix, t=.

    There are two verbs for 'to go' quoted in [Khalilov 1995: 329]: =õqʼo and g=Vh. We treat them as synonyms.

    There are two verbs for 'to go' quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988]: =oqʼo and g=Vː. We treat them as synonyms.

    There are two verbs for 'to come' quoted in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 503]: class=aqʼe and noχ. The exact difference between them is unknown; browsing through available sources confirms that both are used quite frequently. We are obliged to threat them as synonyms.

    A second candidate, found in [Khalilov 1999], is neχ 'to come'. We treat both verbs as synonyms.

    The difference between two documented verbs for 'to come', =atʼiqʼ & =iχʷ, is unclear; we have to treat them as synonyms.

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=otʼqʼ {отIкъа} 'to come' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 181]. As in other Khwarshi varieties, there are two known verbs for 'to come': class=otʼqʼ and class=uχ ~ class=uχˤ {уха} [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 32, 43]. Browsing through textual examples in [Khalilova 2009] suggests that (1) =otʼqʼ and =uχ are complete or almost complete synonyms in the meaning 'to come'; (2) =otʼqʼ is used much more frequently than =uχ.

    Cf. an example in which two verbs are used in parallel constructions: "...the Bagwalals came (=otʼqʼ), the Echedas came (=otʼqʼ), other people also came (=uχ) from around from other villages ..." [Khalilova 2009: 95].

    Other attested examples for =otʼqʼ 'to come' are: e.g., "That man came to our village" [Khalilova 2009: 42]; "My children came" [Khalilova 2009: 44]; "The manual machine gunner who was in Manchuria came back having hurt his legs" [Khalilova 2009: 75]; "The giant came there while they were sitting under the tree" [Khalilova 2009: 77]; "The wolf came near the apple tree" [Khalilova 2009: 87]; "When he came near the house, and before going inside, he ..." [Khalilova 2009: 90]; "The eldest (girl) came" [Khalilova 2009: 99]; "There, the man who sells watermelon came" [Khalilova 2009: 116].

    On the contrary, available examples for =uχ 'to come' are rather scant; cf. "Hey people, come, there is something in my eye, take it out" [Khalilova 2009: 73], "Put the food over there, I will come to eat" [Khalilova 2009: 116], "Then the wolf went from there to the donkey" [Khalilova 2009: 118], "When (donkey) went from uphill down the hill, (donkey) met a horse" [Khalilova 2009: 120].

    Apparently, already in Proto-East Tsezic *class=ãqʼV started to compete with the non-standard verb *dir=class=VH [NCED: 1016], where *dir= is a directional prefix. In modern East Tsezic lects both verbs for 'to come' function as synonyms with unclear distribution, although *class=ãqʼV- seems to be more common. In West Tsezic, *=VH is not attested; the original Proto-Tsezic meaning of *=VH is unclear.

    A similar situation is observed in the West Tsezic group. Apparently, already in Proto-West Tsezic *class=ãqʼV- began to compete with the verb *class=uχːʷ- B [NCED: 666], which is sometimes attested with the fossilized directional n-prefix (Hinukh, Dido). In modern West Tsezic lects, both verbs for 'to come' function as synonyms with unclear distribution, although *class=ãqʼV- seems to be more common. In East Tsezic, *=uχːʷ- is not attested; the original Proto-Tsezic meaning of *=uχːʷ- is unclear.

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for some vocalic peculiarities.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root.

    Distinct from euphemistic class=ikʼe-ɬ {бикIелъа} with polysemy: 'to get lost, disappear / to die' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 84].

    Distinct from rarer, stylistically marked synonyms: rude geg {гега} with polysemy: 'to get squashed / to get broken / to die' [Khalilov 1999: 81], rude ɬiqu {лъихъа} with polysemy: 'to dry (intrans.) / to die' [Khalilov 1999: 175], rude ʁutʼ {гъутIа} 'to die (only of animals?)' [Khalilov 1999: 94], polite kec {кеца} with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep / to die' [Khalilov 1999: 138].

    Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=uh {угьа} 'to die' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 6, 26].

    Replacements: {'to die' > 'to get spoilt'} (Hunzib proper, Bezhta proper, Tlyadal Bezhta, Hinukh, Kidero Dido); {'to die' > 'to get finished'} (Bezhta proper).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verb; polysemy: 'to die / to get spoilt' can be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic.