Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Lak. and PD reflect a form with delabialisation (*ʔŏnc̣_wǝ̄ > *ʔŭnc̣_ǝ̄); otherwise correspondences are regular.
Notes: Lak. and Darg. do not have the expected dental prothesis, characteristic for roots of this structure (HRVNCV̄; in Lak. we would expect *t:irik:-, and in PD - *durik:-); this may be connected with old class prefixation or special syntactic features of numerals. Vocalism in PL, Lak., Av. and part of Andian languages (diverging from the normal reflexation of *ǟ) is due to the influence of *ʡĕrŁ_ɨ̆ 'seven' (see below about its influence on the WC form, too).
In WC labialisation is obviously secondary (as in some other cases, it must be explained by former class prefixation: *uV-ƛ́V > *ƛ́ʷV). It is more difficult to explain the lack of expected gemination in *ƛ́: (the EC data point to the final long vowel); maybe this was caused by analogy with the following NC numeral, *ʡĕrŁ_ɨ̆ 'seven' q.v. Still, the common origin of the EC and WC forms is beyond doubt.
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 239, 242; 1930, 275; Абдоков 1983, 155-156.
Notes: An interesting common NC cultural term. We should stress that Lak. ruḳ and PD *duḳ 'yoke', however similar, still belong to another root (see *riḳwV) (although of course the root *ʔrĕg_wĔ could have influenced it). In PWC the root obtained a prefixed labial (a rather frequent development), with a usual in such cases delabialisation of the following consonant. See Trubetzkoy 1922, 241, Abdokov 1983, 131.
We will probably be right in separating the root *ʔrĕg_wĔ from a slightly similar cultural Wanderwort, present in many linguistic families of the Near East: IE *i_eug- / *i_ug-, PK *uʁel-, Sem. *ʁull-, the source of which may be ultimately Indo-European (cf. IE *i_eug- 'to bind'). See abundant discussion of this root in Illich-Svitych 1965, 334-335, Goniashvili 1940, 581, Klimov 1964, 186, Deeters 1957, 390. There are traces of this root in NC languages as well: cf. Abkh. a-wǝ́ʁʷ, Ub. ʁawǝ́ (possibly borrowed from Kartvelian, see Charaya 1912, 15; Illich-Svitych ibid.; Shagirov 1,90; however, a reconstruction like PWC *wVGwV is also possible, and the precise direction of loan is still to be determined), Tab. (Kand.) uʁin 'yoke for one ox' (as opposed to jirk:aʁ "yoke for two oxen"). As we see, they are very sparse, and probably represent a later loanword - at any rate, having nothing to do with PNC *ʔrĕg_wĔ.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Although in PN we have a stem with changing class prefixes, it is probably secondary: a result of treating *d- in PN *dist "(lower) end" (cf. Chech., Ing. dist) as a class prefix. All other data point to a protoform with the initial cluster *ʔr-.
Cf. also Hurr. tawš-aɣlǝ 'bottom, lower part' (with t- regularly < *r-), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 29.
Notes: This stem should be probably kept apart from PEC *ʔŏ 'demonstrative pronoun', since they are opposed in some languages; however, contaminations were certainly possible. In some Eastern languages (Lezg. and Khin.) the root tends to mean 'that (above the speaker)'. See Абдоков 1983, 139-140.
Notes: An And-WC isogloss (see Абдоков 1983, 171). The correspondence is not quite regular: with a tense phonation we would rather expect *q̇ʷǝ- or *ʁʷǝ- in PWC. Perhaps we should reconstruct *-VḳwV, regularly yielding PWC *ḳʷǝ- and acquiring a secondary (expressive) tenseness in PA? At any rate, it is hard to separate the PA and PWC forms.
Notes: Among modern languages the root is attested only within Nakh (an old borrowing from Nakh or some close language is probably Arch. hal-lu / hal 'master'). However, the root is no doubt archaic, because it has interesting parallels in HU: Hurr. all-ae 'princess, queen', *allae-ɣǝ 'household' (borrowed in Arm. aɫx 'family, household', allae-χi-nnǝ 'housewife' ( > Arm. aɫaxin 'serving woman, female slave'); Ur. al-ae 'master, ruler', al-awe 'great'. See Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 50.
The HU forms with the *-χǝ-suffix (voiced in Hurr. -ɣ-) are particularly interesting, because it seems that they were borrowed back into EC languages with the meaning 'slave': cf. Av., Cham. laʁ, Darg. laʁ, Lak. laʁ ( > Arch. (Mikailov) laχ-t:u 'obedient'), Tind. laʁa, Akhv., Kar. laʁe, God. laʁi 'slave', PL *laʁ > Arch. lo (erg. laha) 'child'.
Notes: A reliable common NC root; the correspondence is regular, both semantically and phonetically (the PWC form has a frequent labial prefix *p(ǝ)-). The AK-EC comparison was first put forward by Balkarov (1964, 100).
Relatively few languages have preserved the verbal root; much more extensively reflected in EC languages is the derivate *ʔālć̣VrV 'weed' (sometimes with reduction of the weak initial syllable).
Notes: The semantic correlation "beer, alcoholic beverage" : "whey, sour milk product" is rather frequent (because some alcoholic drinks were made out of milk or whey).
This Avar-Tsez isogloss is rather interesting, because it is certainly an old Iranian (Scythian) loanword, ultimately going back to a Germanic source (Proto-Germanic *aluδ 'beer' < PIE *alut-). The root is still present in Osset. älūton, and was also borrowed (probably from an early Ossetian source) into Georg. ludi (dial. aludi) 'beer' - see Abayev 1,130-131. Regardless of whether this loanword penetrated East Caucasian languages during the period of the Avaro-Ando-Tsezian unity or somewhat later, it must have been borrowed before the change *l > r occurred in Avaro-Andian (unfortunately, Tsez. -r- here is uninformative: it can go back to both PTs *-r- and -l-).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. One of the rare cases of an original trisyllabic root structure (which is clearly seen in PA and PL). In Lak. and Darg., as well as in some Lezghian languages, the first weak syllable with a laryngeal was lost, which makes the precise reconstruction of the first vowel impossible. The PA form *nus:inHV (or *ʔuns:inHV) is probably a result of assimilation < *ʔuns:ilHV (~ -rH-). Lak has, besides isu 'owl', also (Khosr.) s:uli 'wild turkey'; because of the irregular reflex s:-, however, it must be considered as a loan (from Darg. or from some Lezg. language).
In spite of phonetic difficulties (caused by the root's trisyllabic character), the overall reconstruction seems quite reliable.
Notes: Correspondences are regular (although there is not enough data for precise vocalic reconstruction), and the root can be safely reconstructed for PEC.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (although there is not enough data to reconstruct the PEC vocalism); Lak. su is a reduction < *ʔusu.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root is known only in the East Dagestan area (and reflected only in three languages, so the vocalism is not clear). In Lak. q̇- is a historical preverb.
