This feature allows to generate a graphic representation of the supposed genetic relationships between the language set included in the database, in the form of a genealogical tree (it is also implemented in the StarLing software). The tree picture also includes separation dates for various languages, calculated through standardized glottochronological techniques; additionally, a lexicostatistical matrix of cognate percentages can be produced if asked for.
The tree can be generated by a variety of methods, and you can modify some of the parameters to test various strategies of language classification. The pictures can be saved in different graphic formats and used for presentation or any other purposes.
This option displays the full description for the selected database, including: (a) the complete list of primary and secondary bibliographical sources for the included languages, including brief descriptions of all titles; (b) general notes on said languages, e. g. sociolinguistic information, degree of reliability of sources, notes on grammatical and lexical peculiarities of the languages that may be relevant for the compilation of the lists, etc.; (c) details on the transcription system that was used in the original data sources and its differences from the UTS (Unified Transcription System) transliteration.
This option, when checked, uses a set of different color markers to highlight groups of phonetically similar words in different languages with the same Swadesh meaning.
Phonetic similarity between two different forms is defined in the GLD as a situation in which the aligned consonants of the compared forms (usually the first two) are deemed «similar» to each other. In order for two consonants to be «similar», they have to belong to the same «consonantal class», i.e. a group of sounds that share the same place and a similar manner of articulation. The current grouping of sounds into sound classes can be found here.
Accordingly, the aligned forms undergo a process of «vowel extraction» (all vowels are formally assumed to belong to «class H», together with «weak» laryngeal phonemes), and the individual consonants are then converted to classes, e. g. dog → TK, drink → TRNK (in comparisons, only the first two consonants will be used, so, actually TR), eat → HT (word-initial vowel is equated with lack of consonant or «weak» consonant), fly → PR (l and r belong to the same class) and so on.
If both of the first two consonants of the compared forms are found to correlate, i.e. belong to the same class, the words are deemed similar (e. g. English fly and German fliegen both have the consonantal skeleton PR). If at least one differs, the words are not deemed similar (e. g. English tooth → TT and Old Norse tɔnn → TN, although they are etymological cognates, will not pass the similarity tense because of the second position).
In most cases, checking this option will highlight phonetically similar forms that are also etymological cognates and share the same numeric cognation indexes. Occasionally, however, the checking will also yield «false positives» (accidentally phonetically similar forms that do not share a common origin) and «false negatives» (phonetically dissimilar forms, not highlighted, but actually cognate). It should be noted that one should never expect this method to yield a 100% accurate picture of etymological cognacy. Rather, the method is useful for the following goals: (a) assess the amount of phonetic change that took place between related languages; (b) give a general idea of the degree of closeness of relationship for those languages where phonetic correspondences have not yet been properly established; (c) assess the average number of «chance similarities» that may arise between different languages.
The last task is particularly instructive if the «Highlight...» option is used between two different languages from different databases, i.e. not related to each other or distantly related: in most cases, it will yield around 2-3 accidental color highlights, but occasionally, the count may go as high up as 5 or 6.
This option unfolds all of the notes that accompany the individual forms in the database. Sometimes these notes only consist of a basic reference to the bibliographical source, but at other times, they can be quite expansive, which makes browsing through the wordlist quite cumbersome. By default, the notes stay hidden (each note can also be opened separately by clicking on the sign next to the word).
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].
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.
M. Khalilov, p.c. The second Khoshar-Khota term for 'all' reported by Khalilov is seh / setʼ (with unclear distribution of variants), but we prefer to treat it as a more marginal expression, following the Bezhta proper and Tlyadal descriptions.
Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 249; Khalilov 1995: 58. In [Khalilov 1995], treated as a synonym of Bezhta proper qʼacʼː-o 'all'. Participle with the -y-suffix (lː < *ly) from the auxiliary present stem gel 'to be' [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 255], although the vowel change e ~ ä is irregular.
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.
Khalilov 1999: 277, 312, 440. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus)'. Browsing through available sources suggests that the adjective cʼikʼ-y-u is the most frequent and generic expression for 'all'.
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]).
Karimova 2014; Imnaishvili 1963: 131; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 116. Consists of the present participle goyɬa (< *goɬ-y-a) [Imnaishvili 1963: 223] from the auxiliary present stem goɬ-e 'to be' [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 118] plus the suffix -č, which forms collective numerals [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 112]. In [Karimova 2014], the form goyɬa-yab {гойлъаяб} 'all' is also quoted.
Karimova 2014; Imnaishvili 1963: 131. Consists of the present participle gol(ʸ)ːu (< *gol-y-u) [Imnaishvili 1963: 223] from the auxiliary present stem gol-i 'to be' [Bokarev 1959: 169] plus the suffix -č.
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].
Proto-Tsezic:*g=ɔʫ-y-
NCED: 278. Distribution: An unstable word. The formal match between Tlyadal Bezhta gälː-ö (East Tsezic) and Khwarshi goyɬa, golʸːu-č (West Tsezic) allows us to reconstruct the Proto-Tsezic quantifier 'all' as the y-participle from the prefixal auxiliary verb *g=ɔʫV 'to be' [NCED: 278]. Bezhta proper gey 'to be', gäh-iy-o 'existing', gäːh-iy-o 'all' apparently represent the same protoforms, although *ʫ > h instead of expected l is irregular. In TsezEDb: #149, a distinct Proto-Tsezic root *guyʫ(ː)- is reconstructed for the discussed words for 'all'; we find this unnecessary. The match between Hinukh čʼekʼː-u and Kidero Dido cʼikʼ-y-u (that should imply Proto-Tsezic *cʼekʼ-y-u ~ -ɨ- ~ -ǝ-) is therefore secondary and contact-driven.
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 144, 207; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; van den Berg 1995: 330; Bokarev 1961: 164, 176. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the form is transcribed as ričʼul - a typo (the original field notes have ričul. - Ya. Testelets, p.c.). Polysemy: 'bark / crust'. Apparently an old deverbative r=ič-ul from the verb class=iče {бича} 'to peel, skin' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 41], although such a suffixal pattern is very rare, if not unique.
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}).
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'.
Common Bezhta notes:
The stem ƛʼeqʼa should be considered the Proto-Bezhta term for 'bark'.
Distinct from the Common Bezhta term for 'birch bark': Bezhta proper, Khoshar-Khota qʼeqʼel-ba, Tlyadal qʼeqʼel-bä [Khalilov 1995: 155; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97] (apparetnly -ba is the fossilized plural exponent).
A second term is the borrowing qal {хъал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel / layer, coat / skin' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 358, 456] < Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 146. Differently in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97], where the word for 'bark' is quoted as qal (borrowing from Avar qːal 'peel, bark').
Distinct from the more specific term čʼita 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].
NCED: 931. Distribution: *qʼʷˤel A is attested as the basic term for 'bark' in all West Tsezic lects and can be safely reconstructed at least as the Proto-West Tsezic word for this meaning. As proposed in [NCED: 931], this root is retained in East Tsezic as the reduplicated stem qʼeqʼel- 'birch bark'.
'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).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 27, 200; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36; van den Berg 1995: 284; Bokarev 1961: 150, 174. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach'. According to [Isakov & Khalilov 2001], however, ãχ means only 'belly', whereas 'stomach' is expressed by the collocation qʼɑm-is ãχ, literally 'head of belly'. In [van den Berg 1995; Bokarev 1961], there is a different polysemy, glossed as 'belly / food'; it is not confirmed by other sources.
Distinct from the Common Bezhta term for 'stomach': Bezhta proper, Tlyadal ãχ {анх}, Khoshar-Khota aχ [Khalilov 1995: 35, 306; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 46, 440; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach', applied to both humans and animals.
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.
Khalilov 1999: 32, 324; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach', applied to both humans and animals.
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 {анх} 'belly' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16]. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach'. The variant ãχˤ is from [Khalilova 2009].
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔãχː
NCED: 598. Distribution: Retained in all lects, usually with polysemy: 'belly / stomach', except for Proto-Bezhta, where *ʔãχː was superseded by *ʔǝ̃χː (~ ʁ) in the meaning 'belly', although still retained in the meaning 'stomach'.
The root *ʔǝ̃χː (~ ʁ), attested as the Common Bezhta term for 'belly', seems isolated in Tsezic; for possible external comparanda see [NCED: 676].
NCED: 594. Distribution: Retained as the basic adjective for 'big' in all lects, except for Hinukh and Dido. In Dido, *class=uqʼˤV shifted to the meaning 'many' q.v., having been lost in Hinukh.
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.
Mokok Dido letʼu {летIу} 'bird' [Khalilov 1999: 170, 366]; it is not clear from Khalilov's gloss whether this is a generic Mokok term for 'bird' or a specific one for 'a k. of bird'.
Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 7; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 85; Bokarev 1959: 147. The variant kʼɨca is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990; Bokarev 1959].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: kʼuca ~ kʼɨca {кIуца} 'bird' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 7]. In [Karimova 2014], only kʼuca is quoted.
Proto-Tsezic:*mihnV
Distribution: At least several of the attested Tsezic languages display the lexical opposition between a term for 'small/middle bird (in general)' and various terms for specific kinds of large (predatory) birds. It is very likely that such a system is to be projected onto the Proto-Tsezic level.
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).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 148 sub sinlo; van den Berg 1995: 332. Applied to both humans and animals (e.g., a dog). Literally 'to beat the tooth to/for smth.' with sɨlǝ 'tooth' q.v. and class=ĩyaː 'to beat' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 190; van den Berg 1995: 307] (for denasalization class=Ṽ... > class=V... see [van den Berg 1995: 31]).
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].
Khalilov 1995: 230, 313; Madieva 1965: 185. Literally 'to put the tooth' with sila 'tooth' q.v. and gVl 'to put, set' [Khalilov 1995: 64].
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 {гьанна} 'to bite' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 255]. Applied to both humans and animals (e.g., a dog).
Proto-Tsezic:*heˤn- ~ *heˤl-
NCED: 625. Distribution: Retained as the basic term in West Tsezic (Hinukh, Dido, Khwarshi), but lost in East Tsezic (Hunzib, Bezhta). In East Tsezic, this verb was superseded by descriptive constructions with *sːɨl 'tooth' q.v. and the verbs 'to beat' and 'to put', which are apparently secondary.
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).
NCED: 379. Distribution: Two forms enter into competition:
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'.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: ẽqʼo ~ ẽqʼˤo {энкъо} 'blood' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 5, 16]. The variant ẽqʼˤo is from [Khalilova 2009].
Common Khwarshi notes:
Historically ĩ-qʼʷa, ẽ-qʼo.
Proto-Tsezic:*ħɔ̃y A
NCED: 496. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
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].
Khalilov 1999: 147, 335; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 38. In [Khalilov 1999], quoted as qʼˤaqʼu, a generic term with polysemy: 'bone / cabbage stalk' (the generic semantics follows from such textual examples as "phalanx", "forearm bone", "The dog gnaws at a bone"). In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], quoted as qʼʷˤaqʼu and specified as 'non-tubular bone in general'.
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.
NCED: 528. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects, although in Kidero Dido it is obsolete, being superseded by *qʼʷˤãqʼu [NCED: 907], whose original Proto-Tsezic meaning was 'a kind of bone', perhaps 'tubular bone (in general)'.
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 59, 197; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; van den Berg 1995: 300; Bokarev 1961: 154, 174. Meaning 'male breast'.
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].
The second element of the compounds (-lokʼʷa, -lokʼo) means 'heart' q.v.
Proto-Tsezic:*χɨmV ~ *χɨmV-rV
NCED: 829. Distribution: Attested with or without the r-suffix as the basic term in all West Tsezic lects, except for Khwarshi proper. Normally 'breast' is expressed by synchronic compounds of *χɨmV(-rV) and the word for 'heart', although plain *χɨmV(-rV) is also attested in West Tsezic (the compound pattern looks like a late West Tsezic areal isogloss). This stem is also present in East Tsezic as Hunzib proper χɨmǝr 'brisket' and Bezhta proper χomaː 'thoracic cage'. It is unclear whether χɨmǝr and χomaː represent borrowings from West Tsezic or inherited forms. Initial χ speaks in favor of borrowed origin, because normally Proto-Tsezic *χ > Proto-East Tsezic *ʁ [NCED: 112]. On the other hand, no compatible West Tsezic forms that could be the source of hypothetical borrowing are attested, whereas the vowels of East Tsezic χɨmǝr and χomaː suggest an inherited origin (this is especially true of ɨ in χɨmǝr).
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 35, 200; van den Berg 1995: 295; Bokarev 1961: 170, 174. Causative from class=ekʼe {бекIа} 'to burn (intrans.)' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 35, 197; van den Berg 1995: 295; Bokarev 1961: 170, 173].
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.
Simple =akʼʷ, =okʼ are labile verbs with polysemy: 'to burn (intrans.) / to burn (trans.)'. The parallel stems in -(a)χ are regular causative formations 'to burn (trans.)'; for the causative suffix -χ see [Khalilova 2009: 272].
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ekʼʷV ~ *class=ekʼʷV-l B
NCED: 632. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in the meaning 'to burn (intrans.)' in all Tsezic lects. The transitive meaning is expressed by synchronic causative forms (with different causative suffixes in individual lects), although in Khwarshi dialects plain *class=ekʼʷV additionally functions as a labile verb.
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).
NCED: 814. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 63, 217; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205; van den Berg 1995: 301; Bokarev 1961: 153. Apparently, has with polysemy: 'sky / cloud / fog'; has-mus with polysemy: 'cloud / fog'. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], has means 'sky / fog', whereas has-mus is a specific term for 'cloud'. In [van den Berg 1995], has-mus is glossed as 'horizon'. The second element mus is unattested outside this compound (its original meaning was 'a k. of smoke' vel sim., see [NCED: 836]).
Khalilov 1995: 321; M. Khalilov, p.c. However, in the main section of the dictionary [Khalilov 1995: 74] has-mus is glossed with polysemy: 'universe / fog'.
Polysemy: 'cloud / fog' in all the dialect. The form has-mus is a compound of Common Bezhta has 'sky' (in Bezhta proper polysemy 'sky / fog') [Khalilov 1995: 74; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 197] + mus 'smoke with soot' (see sub 'smoke').
Khalilov 1999: 30; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205. Polysemy: 'sky / cloud / fog / walleye'. Cf. the attested example: "[He is like] a white cloud before the sun" [Khalilov 1999: 298].
Cf. also gutʼ, which is glossed with polysemy 'fog / smoke' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205], but only as 'smoke' in [Khalilov 1999: 87].
Khalilov 1995: 111, 345. Applied to both objects and weather. Also functions as a nominalized lexeme: y=äčʼː-ö 'cold (subst.)' [Khalilov 1995: 111; Madieva 1965: 196].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=ucʼː-u {луцIцIу} 'cold' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 104, 301]. Applied to both objects and weather.
Common Khwarshi notes:
-ycʼ-, -cʼː- < *-cʼ-y-. Past participle in -y- from the verb that is documented as Kwantlada Khwarshi class=ucʼ 'to be(come) cold' [Khalilova 2009: 321].
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ɔčʼ-y- A
NCED: 393. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic stems, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 117; van den Berg 1995: 284; Bokarev 1961: 150, 179. Polysemy: 'to come / to arrive / to ripen (of fruit) / to go to smb.'s head (of alcohol)'. According to numerous examples found in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001], this is the basic verb for 'to come' at least in the Hunzib proper dialect.
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=.
Khalilov 1995: 329; M. Khalilov, p.c.; Madieva 1965: 180. Polysemy: 'to come / to bring / to marry'. It should be noted that in the main section of the dictionary [Khalilov 1995: 133], the meaning 'to come' is not quoted.
There are two verbs for 'to go' quoted in [Khalilov 1995: 329]: =õqʼo and g=Vh. We treat them as synonyms.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 75. Polysemy: 'to go / to come / to reach, get to / to flow'. Morphophonologically =õqʼo, for old nasalization cf. the class 3 form m=oqʼo- < *b=õqʼo-.
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.
Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 95, 96, 101, 103, 104, 106, 113. Cf. the examples: "The woman has come" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 95]; "With the woman, her daughter has come" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 101]; "He has returned from the city" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 103].
The difference between two documented verbs for 'to come', =atʼiqʼ & =iχʷ, is unclear; we have to treat them as synonyms.
Karimova 2014. The difference between two documented verbs for 'to come', =otʼqʼ & =uχ, 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].
Common Khwarshi notes:
The morphological structure of =Vtʼ(i)qʼ 'to come' is unclear.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ãqʼV
NCED: 611. Distribution: Retained in the basic meaning 'to come' in all Tsezic lects except for the Khwarshi dialects, where *class=ãqʼV was superseded by the verb class=Vtʼ(i)qʼ, which is unclear both morphologically and etymologically.
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.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 44, 240; van den Berg 1995: 337; Bokarev 1961: 166, 181. Polysemy: 'to die / to get spoilt', applied to humans, animals and objects.
Khalilov 1999: 48, 390. Polysemy: 'to die / to get spoilt'.
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].
Build treei