Notes: Besides some metatheses (of the glottalisation feature, and of root consonants as such), which are usual in roots containing two stops, correspondences are regular, and the etymology seems quite satisfactory. Note the frequent use of the derivate in *-lV in EC (reflected in Av. č̣:iḳa-ro, Lak. ḳič̣a-la, PD *ḳuc̣u-l).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. An expressive root with many irregular changes (metatheses, as-/dissimilations etc.). The reconstruction is complicated by contaminations with another root, PEC *ḳVm(V)ć_V 'lizard' (which explains the nasal resonant in PA and Khin.).
Notes: The comparison of the Chech., Av.-And. and WC forms seems rather probable, although the precise meaning of this PNC kinship term has been somewhat obscured by its usage in compounds and by the influence of other kinship terms. It may have denoted an aunt / uncle or his (her) family.
Notes: The EC-WC comparison is quite plausible phonetically and semantically; its only drawback is the root's very sparse representation in the EC area. See Abdokov 1983, 116 (Av. : WC, with admixture of many unrelated forms). However, all other etymologies of the WC material (comparison with Cham. čala 'goat' [Rogava 1956, 75], with PEC *c̣_ü̆hnV̄ 'goat' [Balkarov 1964, 97-98], with Iranian (Avest. būza-, Pers. buz 'he-goat') [Shagirov 1, 85]) are improbable for phonetic reasons.
Notes: Despite superficial dissimilarity, the EC-WC comparison is phonetically quite regular. The PWC form has regularly lost resonants, but the medial *-j- (reconstructed on basis of the PN reflex *sṭ) has left a trace in the palatalisation of the PWC affricate. In most languages the root means 'autumn', but sometimes also 'winter' or 'spring'; it probably denoted the rainy season in general.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Avar form can be related here if we assume secondary prefixation and loss of nasal before the *-ta-/*-da-suffix. Medial *-j- must be assumed to account for PN *sṭ-.
Notes: A local Av.-Tsez. isogloss. Abdokov (1983, 125) compares also Kab. šǝndǝrχʷa 'lizard', but the form is expressive and isolated within WC, thus the comparison is rather dubious.
Notes: An And.-Lezg. isogloss. There is little doubt that the Andian and Lezghian forms are related, although the structure of the root (trisyllabic, containing two stops) makes the reconstruction, particularly vocalic, rather difficult.
Notes: The root is attested only in Lak. and Tab., but within a compound of two identical parts (*c_walV-bǟmbV ~ *bǟmbV-c_walV). Further etymology is not clear.
Notes: Correspondences are regular. In most languages the root combines the meanings "gall" and "anger", so they must have existed simultaneously already in PNC.
Abdokov (1983, 84) compares the EC forms with PWC *ca 'to burn', which is not plausible for both phonetic and semantic reasons (see PNC *=ĕrc_Ă).
Notes: An Av.-And.-Darg. isogloss. It is not quite clear, whether we should also add a Nakh parallel: PN *s[o] 'here, towards here' (Bacb. so '(towards) here', siwħĕ 'here, to this side'; Chech. sħa '(towards) here', sħa- 'a preverb denoting motion towards the speaker', Ing. ħa- ( < *sħa-) id.).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The correlation PA *š:- : Lak. šʷ- points to *ćw- with tenseness; it is interesting to compare this root with PK *c̥1̇wil- 'wax'.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The etymology is not very certain, because there is much confusion within the Lezghian reflexes, and we have only dialectal (not very secure) recordings in Av. and Lak. In other EC languages there exists also a number of words, close to this root, but very aberrant phonetically: cf. And. (Khaid.) c:uṭa 'dung-beetle', Gunz. (Khaid.) c̣ǝda 'beetle', Darg. c̣uzdagi ( < *c̣ut:- ?) id. Cf. also Av. ócħuṭ 'dung-beetle', possibly also belonging here, but folk-etymologically transformed (meaning literally "ox-worm" in modern Avar).
Notes: The PNC reconstruction seems secure both phonetically and semantically. Cf. also Osset. ʒonɨɣ 'jaw' - obviously from a Cauc. source and having nothing to do with the wondering word for 'sleigh' (despite Abayev 1958, 397-398).
Notes: The comparison seems quite plausible both phonetically and semantically; however, since the root is known only in a few EC languages, (PN and And. with metathesis), the reconstruction remains somewhat uncertain.
