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.
Bezhta (proper):qʼacʼː-o {къацIцIо}3
Khalilov 1995: 153, 401; Madieva 1965: 168.
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.
Khoshar-Khota Bezhta:qʼacʼː-o3
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.
Hinukh:čʼekʼː-u {чIекIкIу}5
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 396, 583; Forker 2013: 408. Morphologically, an adjective with kʼː < *kʼ-y. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus) / completely, entirely'.
Kidero Dido:cʼikʼ-y-u {цIикIйу}5
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.
Inkhokwari Khwarshi:class=otʼqʼ {отIкъа}4
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].
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 164, 221; van den Berg 1995: 341; Bokarev 1961: 167, 178. Polysemy: 'to drink / to smoke', with both transitive and intransitive usage. Historically, a compound χu-ƛ, where the second element ƛ is a verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Hunzib proper iƛe 'to call, cry' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 202; van den Berg 1995: 306]). Cf. the paronymous suffixed verb χu-raː 'to drink (alcohol), get drunk' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 164; van den Berg 1995: 341]. See [van den Berg 1995: 111] for several Hunzib verbal roots with the "mouth" (or rather "sound") semantics, from which two stems are attested: in -ƛ and in -raː.
Distinct from the compound sõƛe {сонлIа} 'to sip' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 149].
Historically, a compound χu-ƛo, where the second element ƛo is a verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Bezhta proper iƛe 'to call, cry' [Khalilov 1995: 307; Madieva 1965: 163]). For Bezhta complex verbs in -ƛo/-ƛe denoting sounds, see [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 273].
A synonym is found in the compound verb hi-ƛ {гьилIа} 'to drink / to sip' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 143, 490], marked by Khalilov & Isakov as a rarely used form. Historically, a compound: hi-ƛ, where the second element ƛ is the verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Hinukh eƛi 'to call, cry / to say' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 405]). For Hinukh complex verbs in -ƛe denoting sounds, see [Forker 2013: 322]. Note the morphological difficulty with the final vowel: the independent verb is eƛi, the second element of sound denoting verbs is -ƛe, the second element of the aforementioned verb 'to drink' is -ƛ.
The same in other dialects: Asakh ħa-ƛu {хIалIва} 'to drink' [Khalilov 1999: 262].
Historically, a compound verb: ħa-ƛu, where the second element ƛu is a verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Kidero Dido eƛi 'to say' q.v.). For Dido complex verbs in -ƛi ~ -ƛa denoting sounds, see [Bokarev 1959: 204; Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004: 147]. Note the morphological difficulty with the final vowel: the independent verb is eƛi, the second element of sound-denoting verbs is -ƛi ~ -ƛa, the second element of the aforementioned verb 'to drink' is -ƛu.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 148. The stem is χi-ƛa, cf. the diagnostic present form χi-ƛa-ha [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117]. Apparently, this is the basic verb for 'to drink' in Khwarshi proper; cf. two attested instances: "The rich man begun to drink water" [Imnaishvili 1963: 249]; "The horses came to the river to drink water ... But they failed to drink water" [Imnaishvili 1963: 298].
A second candidate is cʼod {цIода} 'to drink' [Karimova 2014] without examples.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 145, 148, 167. The stem is χu-ƛ, not χu-ƛV, cf. the diagnostic present form χu-ƛː-e < *χu-ƛ-še [Bokarev 1959: 164].
A second Inkhokwari candidate is cʼod {цIода} 'to drink' [Karimova 2014; Imnaishvili 1963: 187, 240]. No textual instances were found either for χu-ƛ or for cʼod, but, through analogy with other Khwarshi dialects, we suppose that χu-ƛ is the basic verb.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: χu-ƛ {хулIа} 'to drink' [Karimova 2014]. The stem is χu-ƛ, not χu-ƛV, cf. the diagnostic present form χu-ƛ-še [Khalilova 2009: 184]. Browsing through [Khalilova 2009] proves that χu-ƛ is the most generic and frequently used verb for 'to drink'. Cf. the attested examples: "The mother is drinking tea now" [Khalilova 2009: 184], "The father usually drinks tea in the morning" [Khalilova 2009: 187], "Children usually drink milk" [Khalilova 2009: 189], "Don't let him drink my juice" [Khalilova 2009: 252], "Can I drink the milk?" [Khalilova 2009: 361], "Father bought beer to drink" [Khalilova 2009: 418].
A second Kwantlada candidate is cʼod {цIода} [Karimova 2014], but examples from [Khalilova 2009] suggest that its real meanings are more specific, e. g. 'to drink alcohol' etc. Cf. the examples: "When everybody smoked (cʼod) the cigarettes, this devil began to choke" [Khalilova 2009: 165], "Our neighbor had been drinking year after year" [Khalilova 2009: 201], "The doctor made the mother make the boy drink the medicine" [Khalilova 2009: 347], "the horses went to the river to drink water" [Khalilova 2009: 401], "Once they were drinking and eating" [Khalilova 2009: 449], "There was nothing. What, did we go there for drinking?" [Khalilova 2009: 457].
Common Khwarshi notes:
Historically, a compound: χu-ƛ(a), where the second element ƛ(a) is a verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Khwarshi iƛ 'to say' q.v.). For Khwarshi complex verbs in -ƛ(V) denoting sounds, see [Khalilova 2009: 267]. It should be noted that in Khwarshi proper, the stem for 'to drink' is χi-ƛa, whereas 'to say' is iƛ, not **iƛa (in other dialects, the CVC pattern was generalized and we have χu-ƛ and iƛ).
The competing verb cʼod might be an Andian loanword, cf. Andi cʼadi 'to drink', Tindi cːa- (< *cʼːad-) 'to drink', although the vowel -o- in Khwarshi is unclear.
Proto-Tsezic:*χːʷi-ƛV
NCED: 221. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects, although in Hinukh, the form is obsolete, superseded by the unclear verb gaː.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the Dido form with irregualr ħ- (which is a normal outcome of *χ, not *χː) and -a-. Despite this, the Dido verb can hardly be separated from other Tsezic forms.
Semantics and structure: Originally a compound of *χːʷi- '?' and the verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV (cf. sub 'to say'). Strictly speaking, the original meaning of *χːʷi- remains unclear. Outside of this compound, the suffixed root *χːʷi- is attested at least in Hunzib with the meaning 'to drink (alcohol), get drunk' that should point to Proto-Tsezic meaning 'to drink'. On the other hand, the Tsezic compound pattern of -ƛV is characteristic just for sound denoting ("ideophonic") verbs; *χːʷi-ƛV 'to drink' is the main exception from this semantic group.
Regular past participle in -r- from the verb (Bezhta proper) qoqo {хъохъал} 'to get dry' [Khalilov 1995: 263]. The loss of Bezhta proper -r- is normal [Bokarev 1959: 71 ff.].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 365, 530; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242. Polysemy: 'dry / withered (of arm etc.)'. Past participle from the verb quqe {хъухъа} with polysemy: 'to get dry / to be hungry' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 365].
Khalilov 1999: 258, 382; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], apparently erroneously transcribed as quqː-ä-si. Past participles from the simple verb quqi {хъухъа} 'to get dry / to thirst' and the causative quqi-r {хъухъира} 'to dry (trans.)' [Khalilov 1999: 258].
A second, apparently less common candidate is ɬiq-aː-si {лъихъа̄си} with polysemy: 'dry / dead (of animal)' [Khalilov 1999: 175], past participle from ɬiqu {лъихъа} 'to dry (intrans.) / to die (rude)' [Khalilov 1999: 175].
Semantics and structure: *qoqV is the verb 'to be(come) dry', the adjectival meaning 'dry' in modern lects is expressed by various synchronic participles.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root; the West Tsezic forms go back to *ʔãχi-ya with a fossilized plural suffix. External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the Proto-Tsezic root is to be analyzed as *ʔã-χa, where final -χa is apparently a fossilized plural exponent.
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198; Bokarev 1959: 156. Polysemy: 'soil / ground / soil' (the meaning 'soil' is quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 457]). Cf. the relevant example: "in the earth" [Bokarev 1959: 156].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: čʼido {чIидо} with polysemy: 'soil / ground / territory' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 93, 396]. Cf. the example: "When they could not bear the hunger, they began to eat the earth" [Khalilova 2009: 396].
Proto-Tsezic:*čʼüdV
NCED: 385. Distribution: Two roots enter into competition:
1) East Tsezic *mɨsV [NCED: 1055] with polysemy: 'soil / clay'; lost in West Tsezic. Its North Caicasian comparanda mean 'big stone, rock' (Andian), 'mountain pasture' (Lak), 'mountain, hill' (Dargi), 'mountain pasture; cattle-shed' (Lezgian).
2) West Tsezic *čʼüdV [NCED: 385] with polysemy: 'soil / clay'; in East Tsezic this root is attested with the meaning 'soot' (Bezhta proper cʼide [Khalilov 1995: 271]). Its North Caucasian comparanda mean 'clay' (Andian), 'dirt, mud' (Dargi).
There is neither internal Tsezic nor external North Caucasian evidence for making a choice between the two. Provisionally we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot 'earth' with *čʼüdV; in any case, neither choice would be relevant for further lexicostatistical analysis.
Abdulaev 2014. Surprisingly, according to Abdulaev's examples ("He is eating bread", "I need to eat and drink to stay alive", "When he lived there, he ate and drank plenty"), =acʼ is the only Sagada verb for 'to eat', used both transitively and intransitively.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=acʼ {лацIа} 'to eat (trans.)' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 21, 26]. Cf. some examples: "The she-goat ate the grass" [Khalilova 2009: 69], "The robber had nothing to eat" [Khalilova 2009: 160], "Each ate one apple" [Khalilova 2009: 178], "I don't eat such dirty leaves" [Khalilova 2009: 202].
kok {кока} 'to eat (intrans.)' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 6, 182]. Cf. some examples: "Put the food over there, I will come to eat" [Khalilova 2009: 116], "One time the father of these girls was eating at one man's (place)" [Khalilova 2009: 146], "Aminat's son does not eat at all" [Khalilova 2009: 201].
Common Khwarshi notes:
There are two verbs for 'to eat' in Khwarshi dialects: transitive =acʼ and objectless intransitive kuk(a) ~ kok. We treat them as synonyms.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ũq ~ *class=ĩqʷ
NCED: 559. Distribution: All Tsezic lects, except for Sagada Dido, lexically discriminate between 'to eat (trans.)' and 'to eat (intrans.)'. The same opposition is to be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic. The roots attested in the meaning 'to eat' in modern Tsezic lects can be summarized in the following table:
'TO EAT'
Hunzib
Bezhta
Hinukh
Kidero Dido
Sagada Dido
Khwarshi
*class=ũq ~ *class=ĩqʷ [NCED: 559]
trans.
trans.
*class=acʼ [NCED: 1017]
trans.
trans.
(in)trans.
trans.
*class=eš A
intrans.
intrans.
intrans.
intrans.
*kUkV A [NCED: 207]
intrans.
The verb *class=eš A (absent in [NCED; TsezEDb]) can be safely reconstructed as the Proto-Tsezic equivalent for 'to eat (intrans.)'. It was superseded by *=acʼ 'to eat (trans.)' in Sagada Dido and by *kǝkV '?' in Khwarshi.
The original meaning of *kUkV A, only attested in Khwarshi as 'to eat (intrans.)', is unclear. Pace [NCED: 207], it must be separated from Hinukh kiki {кика} 'to feed / to rear, raise', kikzi {кикзи} 'rearing' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 202; Forker 2013: 334], Kidero Dido kiki {кика} 'to rear, raise' [Khalilov 1999: 139], Bezhta proper kikzi {кикзи} 'rearing' [Khalilov 1995: 146], which represent a borrowing from Avar xixi, inf. xixi-ze 'to feed / to rear, raise'.
Reconstruction of Proto-Tsezic 'to eat (trans.)' is more problematic, because there are two equal candidates for this proto-meaning:
1) East Tsezic *class=ũq ~ *class=ĩqʷ; lost in West Tsezic.
2) West Tsezic *class=acʼ; lost in East Tsezic.
There is no internal evidence for making a choice, but external North Caucasian comparison speaks in favour of *=ũq ~ *=ĩqʷ (its external cognates mean 'to eat' or 'to bite', whereas the more scarce cognates of =acʼ mean 'to drink').
NCED: 906. Distribution: A non-trivial case with two competing terms:
1) *qõq-lV, retained in Hunzib, but lost in the rest of lects;
2) cʼVmVcʼ ~ čʼVmVčʼ ~ qʼVmVcʼ ~ kʼVmVčʼ ~ kʼVnVčʼ in other languages. These forms are obvious related to each other, but phonetic correspondences are absolutely abnormal.
The latter has the clear advantage in terms of distribution, but in fact its phonetic irregularity and absence of external North Caucasian etymology could suggest that we deal with a late introduction, which spread as an interdialectal borrowing. The exact source of cʼVmVcʼ ~ čʼVmVčʼ ~ qʼVmVcʼ ~ kʼVmVčʼ ~ kʼVnVčʼ is obscure, but it resembles certain Andian words for 'egg', cf. Chamalal proper čʼačʼã, pl. čʼačʼa-me, Gigatl Chamalal kʼučʼan pl. kʼučʼa-mi, Tindi kʼʸekʼʸama. The Tsezic forms could be a distortion of some Andian words with metathesis and various consonant assimilations/dissimilations.
On the other hand, *qõq-lV, which is only documented for one peripheral language, Hunzib, possesses important external comparanda with the same meaning 'egg' that speaks in favour of its antiquity. Consequently, we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with *qõq-lV.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: ezol [abs.] / ezala-s [gen.] {эзол} 'eye' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 5, 28, 50, 61]. The archaic oblique stem ez- is attested in the locative adverb ez-e 'in the eye' [Khalilova 2009: 113]. In the plural form, with polysemy: 'eye / glasses'.
Proto-Tsezic:*ħɔre B
NCED: 250. 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 secondary interactions between the direct and oblique stems in individual lects.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. Three oblique stems are reconstructible: *ħɔ- (as follows from East Tsezic data) and *ħɔ-zV-, *ħɔrV-zV- (as follows from West Tsezic data). It remains unclear which one reflects the original Proto-Tsezic paradigm. It should be noted that the oblique stem *ħɔrV-zV- has undergone metathesis > *ħɔzV-rV-, which has further spread into the direct stem in Dido and Khwarshi. Cf. similar rebuildings of the original paradigm in the words for 'bone', 'hand' q.v.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 116, 201; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121; van den Berg 1995: 319. The word seems to be like a generic term.
Distinct from cǝcu {цǝцу} with polysemy: 'dissolved grease / bone marrow' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 173, 201; van den Berg 1995: 290]; in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121], cǝcu is glossed as 'fat on meat'; in [Bokarev 1961: 168, 174], as generic 'fat'.
Bezhta (proper):coco {цоцо}2
Khalilov 1995: 268, 306; Madieva 1965: 192. Glossed as generic 'fat' in both sources.
Distinct from the more specific term mähä {маьгьаь} 'internal fat' [Khalilov 1995: 192, 306; Madieva 1965: 175].
Khoshar-Khota Bezhta:coco2
M. Khalilov, p.c. According to Khalilov, this is the generic Khoshar-Khota term for 'fat', although in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121] coco is glossed as 'fat on meat'.
Distinct from mähä, which is glossed as generic 'fat' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121], but specified as 'internal fat' by M. Khalilov, p.c.
Tlyadal Bezhta:coco2
M. Khalilov, p.c. According to Khalilov, this is the generic Tlyadal term for 'fat', although in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121] coco is glossed as 'fat on meat'.
Distinct from mäħä, which is glossed as generic 'fat' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121], but specified as 'internal fat' by M. Khalilov, p.c.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 266; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121. Glossed as generic 'fat' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], but specified as 'visceral fat' in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the phonetic variant mihi is also quoted - apparently an error, influenced by mihi 'tail, fatty tail of sheep' q.v.
Distinct from the more specific or borrowed terms, listed in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 441]:
Khalilov 1999: 191, 324; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121. Paradigm: mo [abs.] / moye- [obl.] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the oblique stem is quoted as mo-do-). Glossed as generic 'fat' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], but specified as 'visceral fat' in [Khalilov 1999]. Synchronic polysemy 'fat / tear (lacrima)' is secondary from the etymological point of view.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: mu {му} 'fat' [Karimova 2014].
Proto-Tsezic:*mɔħV B
NCED: 794. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects except for Bezhta and Sagada Dido.
In Bezhta, *mɔħV shifted to the specific meaning 'internal fat', having been superseded by *cǝcʷɨ (Hunzib cǝcu, Bezhta coco, Hinukh čečey), whose original meaning was probably 'dissolved fat'.
In Sagada Dido, *mɔħV was superseded by *reɬː B 'butter' [NCED: 949].
Replacements: {'butter' > 'fat'} (Sagada Dido).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for some vocalic peculiarities.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Distinct from pudo 'down (fine feathers)' [M. Khalilov, p.c.], despite the fact that pudo is glossed in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45] as generic 'feather'.
Khalilov 1999: 74, 356; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45. Polysemy: 'feather / down'. Cf. the example: "peacock feather" [Khalilov 1999: 238]. Borrowed from Georgian bumbuli 'down (fine feathers)'.
A second, probably more marginal, candidate is the inherited term lela {лела} with polysemy: 'wing / feather' [Khalilov 1999: 169, 356]; missing from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990].
Abdulaev 2014. Borrowed from Avar ħuli 'down / feather'.
Common Dido notes:
Mokok Dido lel {лел} with polysemy: 'wing / feather' [Khalilov 1999: 169; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 215, 216], an inherited word. A second documented Mokok term is the Avar loanword ħuli {хIули} 'feather' [Khalilov 1999: 268].
Khwarshi (proper):ħuli {хIули}-1
Karimova 2014.
Inkhokwari Khwarshi:ħuli {хIули}-1
Karimova 2014. The second, also borrowed, expression for 'feather' is pirtin {пиртин} [Karimova 2014] ~ pɨrtɨn [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45], which ultimately goes back to Georgian prta 'wing / feather'.
Khwarshi ħuli 'feather' is borrowed from Avar ħuli 'down / feather'.
Proto-Tsezic:*pɨdʷV
NCED: 874. Distribution: Retained in East Tsezic, probably with polysemy: 'feather / down' at least on the Proto-East Tsezic level. In some Bezhta dialects, *pɨdʷV was superseded by the unclear form mäčʼä ~ mačʼa 'feather', but retained in the meaning 'down'.
In West Tsezic, the only documented inherited form is Mokok Dido lel 'wing / feather'; in other West Tsezic lects, it only means 'wing' < *ɬir(V) (~ *l-, -l-) [NCED: 762]. The Mokok polysemy is a transparent innovation. In the rest of West Tsezic lects, 'feather' is expressed by Georgian and Avar loanwords.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *bɨsːʷǝ-ro- A, as it can be reconstructed at least for Proto-West Tsezic (where the oblique stem has supplanted the direct one).
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 83. Apparently the verb class=iƛʼi 'to go' q.v. is the normal way to express the semantics of flying as applied to birds (thus polysemy: 'to go / to fly'). Cf. the examples with asab=iƛʼi, literally 'to be going in the sky (as)': “A bird flies in the sky” [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 44], “The crow flies (in the sky)” Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 129].
Another verb, which can be used in the same meaning, is kʼoƛʼ(e) 'to jump' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 235] (thus, with polysemy: 'to jump / to fly'). E.g., in combination with hawa 'air': hawa-ƛʼokʼoƛʼ(e) 'to fly', literally 'to jump in the air' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 132].
Cf. also the verb noχ 'to come / to fly here' q.v.
Distinct from boržizi class=iq 'to fly', applicable to aircraft, literally 'to become boržizi' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 99], borrowed from Avar b=orž-ize 'to fly'.
Khalilov 1999: 57, 338. Apparently the verb class=ikʼi 'to go' q.v. with the optional locative form hawa-ƛʼ 'in the air' is the normal way to express the semantics of flying as applied to birds (thus, with polysemy: 'to go / to fly'). Cf. the attested examples: "The bird is flying (b=ikʼi-χ) low" [Khalilov 1999: 78], "The swallow flies (hawa-ƛʼ b=ikʼi-χ)" [Khalilov 1999: 89], "The butterfly flies (hawa-ƛʼ b=ikʼi-χ)" [Khalilov 1999: 156].
Cf. also the verb class=oχi {боха} 'to run away, go away' [Khalilov 1999: 69], used for the meaning 'to fly away' as in "The fledgeling, fly (away)!" [Khalilov 1999: 296], and the verb neχ 'to come / to fly here' q.v.
Additionally, the collocation class=etʼu-n kʼoƛi {бетIункIолIа} with polysemy: 'to jump / to fly' is quoted in [Khalilov 1999: 48], where =etʼu-n is the past tense form of class=etʼu 'to tear off (intrans.)' [Khalilov 1999: 47] and the inflected verb kʼoƛi {кIолIа} 'to run' [Khalilov 1999: 164]. Apparently =etʼu in the collocation for 'to fly' has nothing to do with Tindi etʷ- 'to fly' and cognate verbs in other Andian languages.
Sagada Dido:boržizi class=oqʷ {боржизи бохъва}-1
Abdulaev 2014. Literally 'to become boržizi', borrowed from Avar b=orž-ize 'to fly'.
Khwarshi (proper):etʷ {этва}-1
Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 90, 103, 104. Cf. the example: "Birds are flying across the sky" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 104].
Inkhokwari Khwarshi:et ~ etʷ {эта, этва}-1
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 146, 164. The more archaic labialized form etʷ is from [Bokarev 1959].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: etʷ {этва} 'to fly' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 18, 181]. Cf. the example: "Now this boy turned into a pigeon, this boy flew away" [Khalilova 2009: 147].
Common Khwarshi notes:
Khwarshi etʷ 'to fly' is very likely borrowed from Tindi etʷ- 'to fly', although inherited Tsezic origin of this verb cannot be excluded either.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=Vkʼičʼ
NCED: 717. Distribution: Retained in East Tsezic with polysemy 'to jump / to fly'; lost in West Tsezic.
In West Tsezic lects (Hinukh, Kidero Dido) 'to fly' is expressed by various verbs for 'to go' and 'to come', which differ between languages. Theoretically, one of these verbs for 'to go', namely *class=ẽƛʼ- or *class=ẽkʼ-, can be reconstructed with the additional meaning 'to fly' at the Proto-Tsezic level, but it is more likely that we deal with a late innovation 'to go' > 'to fly' in Hinukh, Kidero Dido.
In Sagada Dido and Khwarshi, inherited forms are superseded by Avar and Tindi loanwords.
Reconstruction shape: Occasional dissimilative deglottalization kʼ > g in Bezhta proper, irregular cʼ for expected čʼ in Tlyadal Bezhta (or, if the protoform was *class=Vkʼicʼ-, irregular čʼ for expected cʼ in Hunzib).
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal stem; polysemy 'to jump / to fly' can be reconstructed at least for Proto-East Tsezic.
Distinct from čʼumal {чIумал}, whose exact meaning is, however, uncertain: glossed as 'shin, leg' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 180], 'leg from knee till foot' in [van den Berg 1995: 293], generic 'leg' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30]; Russian 'нога', which can mean 'foot', 'leg' or 'foot + leg' in [Bokarev 1961: 169].
Khalilov 1995: 252, 320; Madieva 1965: 188. Polysemy: 'foot / leg / step / support, prop'. Both the meanings 'foot' and 'leg' are definitely established based on examples in [Khalilov 1995: 252].
Distinct from specific halo {гьало} 'foot' [Khalilov 1995: 73], which is apparently rare and obsolete.
Distinct from čʼamal {чIамал} with polysemy: 'shin / leg / stalk, stem' [Khalilov 1995: 279; Madieva 1965: 194].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30. Meaning specifically 'foot'.
Distinct from čämäl (a typo for čʼämäl?), which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30] as a generic term ('foot + leg'), but actually seems to specifically denote 'leg'.
Distinct from čʼämäl, which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30] as a generic term ('foot + leg'), but actually seems to specifically denote 'leg'.
Distinct from kʼoncʼu {кIонцIу} 'leg' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 236; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30], although in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005] this word is glossed as 'нога (вся)', i.e., 'leg + foot'(?).
Distinct from other words, quoted in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005] with the non-specified gloss 'нога'.
1) oʁ ~ oˤʁ {огъ, оIгъ} [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 283] with polysemy 'leg / thigh, hip / trouser leg' (apparently not 'foot').
2) hobo {гьобо} 'foot' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 144], the specific meaning 'foot' is seen from the illustrative examples: “to kick with the foot”, “to hit with the foot”.
Distinct from bula {була} 'leg of animal / hoof' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 107].
Khalilov 1999: 221, 348; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30. Polysemy: 'foot / sole (of the traditional footwear)'.
Distinct from kʼončʼu {кIончIу} with polysemy: 'leg / furniture leg' [Khalilov 1999: 165; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30]; it should be noted that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], this word is glossed as generic 'foot + leg'.
Distinct from several more marginal or specific terms:
1) ʡoʁ {гIогъ, гIоIгъ} (Asakh oˤʁ) [Khalilov 1999: 110] with polysemy: 'leg / thigh, hip' (apparently not 'foot');
2) ʁol {гъол} 'foot' or 'leg', glossed as Russian 'нога' [Khalilov 1999: 92], rarely used;
Kwantlada Khwarshi: lolo ~ lʸolʸo {лоло} with polysemy: 'foot / leg' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 20, 75, 77, 119, 123]. Distinct from the more specific term kʼaˤkʼa ~ kʼakʼa 'leg' [Khalilova 2009: 17, 46, 80].
Proto-Tsezic:*ɬɔlǝ A
NCED: 759. Distribution: Retained in its basic function in all Tsezic lects, except for Bezhta and Sagada Dido.
In all Bezhta dialects it was superseded by *χɔbɔ A [NCED: 454] with polysemy 'foot / leg'. The original meaning of *χɔbɔ is unclear, the only Hinukh cognate means 'foot', but it is not the basic Hinukh term for this meaning. In Bezhta proper, *ɬɔlǝ is still documented as an obsolete word for 'foot'.
In Sagada Dido, the default term for 'foot' seems to be χotʼo - a form of unclear origin, it is also attested in Kidero Dido with the same meaning 'foot', but it is not the basic Kidero term for this meaning.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 44 sub boco 'moon', 76 sub doki 'jug'. Polysemy: 'full / satisfied'. Regular past participle from the verb class=ǝcʼ 'to be filled, get filled' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 51; van den Berg 1995: 346; ; Bokarev 1961: 171].
Khalilov 1995: 130, 327. Past participle from the verb class=ocʼ with polysemy: 'to fill (intrans.) / to be sated' [Khalilov 1995: 130; Madieva 1965: 180].
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612. Polysemy: 'full / satiated' (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], quoted for the latter meaning). Past participle from the verb class=ocʼ 'to fill (intrans.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 92, 495. Polysemy: 'full / satiated' (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], quoted with the meaning 'satiated'). Past participle from the verb class=ičʼ {бичIа} 'to fill (intrans.) / to become satiated' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 92].
Khalilov 1999: 63. Polysemy: 'full / satiated'. Cf. some examples: "a skirt full of smth." [Khalilov 1999: 28], "a tub full of milk" [Khalilov 1999: 69], "a room full of smoke" [Khalilov 1999: 87], "a hayloft full of hay" [Khalilov 1999: 98], "full bag" [Khalilov 1999: 130], "a chest full of wheat" [Khalilov 1999: 141] etc. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], quoted as class=icʼː-ä-si with the meaning 'satiated'. Past participle from the verb class=icʼ {бицIа} 'to fill (intrans.) / to become satiated' [Khalilov 1999: 63].
Past participle from the verb 'to fill (intrans.)': Kwantlada Khwarshi class=ecʼ [Khalilova 2009: 21], with ycʼ, cʼː < *cʼ-y.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ǝcʼ
NCED: 525. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic stems, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
Reconstruction shape: The vocalic correspondence between Proto-East and Proto-West forms is irregular.
Semantics and structure: *class=ǝcʼ- is the verb 'to be(come) full'; the adjectival meaning 'full' in modern lects is expressed by various synchronic participles.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 134, 198; van den Berg 1995: 322; Bokarev 1961: 162, 174. Historically, a prefixal formation n=ɨƛ, where initial n= is either a spatial/directional prefix, cf. [van den Berg 1995: 353], or a fossilized person exponent, thus in [NCED: 641].
The Hinukh verb for 'to give' is suppletive in respect of recipient person: neƛ is used with 1st/2nd p. of the recipient 'to give to me, us, you' / toƛ is used with 3rd p. of the recipient 'to give to him, her, it, them' [Forker 2013: 484 f.]. It must be noted that the distribution is not absolutely strict; browsing through [Forker 2013] provides some aberrant examples among a great number of regular instances: cf. neƛ in the constructions 'he to them' [Forker 2013: 319, 395], 'I to him' [Forker 2013: 250].
We treat neƛ and toƛ as synonyms, although historically they represent paronymous formations n=eƛ and t=oƛ with fossilized directional prefixes.
Khalilov 1999: 198, 318. Polysemy: 'to give / to give as a gift'.
The Kidero Dido verb for 'to give' is suppletive in respect to the recipient person: neƛ is used with 1st/2nd p. of the recipient 'to give to me, us, you' / teƛ is used with 3rd p. of the recipient 'to give to him, her, it, them'. We treat neƛ and teƛ as synonyms, although historically they represent paronymous formations n=eƛ and t=eƛ with fossilized directional prefixes.
It is claimed in [Khalilova 2009: 327] that the Kwantlada Khwarshi verb for 'to give' is suppletive in respect to the recipient person: iƛ is used with 1st/2nd p. of the recipient 'to give to me, us, you' / tVƛ is used with 3rd p. of the recipient 'to give to him, her, it, them'.
[Khalilova 2009] contains multiple Kwantlada Khwarshi textual instances of iƛ and tɨƛ. Thorough analysis shows that (1) iƛ is more frequently used than tVƛ; (2) iƛ is used independently of the recipient person, whereas tVƛ is indeed restricted to 3rd p. of the recipient. Scant Khwarshi proper instances in [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961] demonstrate the same tendencies. Almost no relevant textual data from Inkhokwari Khwarshi are available.
We treat iƛ and tVƛ as synonyms, although historically they represent paronymous formations (t=Vƛ with a fossilized directional prefix).
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔiƛ ~ *dir=ɨƛ A
NCED: 640. 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 strange alternation *i in the plain form vs. *ɨ in the prefixed forms.
Semantics and structure: Primary verb. The plain root *ʔiƛ- is only retained in Khwarshi. Normally we find the prefixed stems *n=ɨƛ- and *t=ɨƛ- (in East Tsezic, only *n=ɨƛ- is used).
In West Tsezic, the usual situation is the grammatical opposition between two stems in respect to the recipient person: stem-A with 1st/2nd p. vs. stem-B with 3rd p. In Hinukh-Dido, this opposition looks as follows: *n=ɨƛ- / *t=ɨƛ-. Somewhat differently in Khwarshi: *ʔiƛ- / *t=ɨƛ-. Because of such a material difference, it is hard to project the described grammatical opposition onto the Proto-West Tsezic level. More likely, we deal with a later grammatical introduction that has affected neighboring West Tsezic lects.
We prefer to treat *n= and *t= as old directional prefixes (a normal pattern for the verb for 'to give'), which probably got desemanticized and fossilized already in Proto-Tsezic. The competing reconstruction of *n= and *t= as unique recipient person exponents does not find additional confirmation.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 146, 156, 164, 166, 167, 170. In [Bokarev 1959: 146, 156, 164, 166, 167], it is transcribed as cɨƛ {цылIа} or even ceƛ {целIи} - apparently mistaken transcriptions of tɨƛ, whereas in [Bokarev 1959: 170] it is correctly quoted as tiƛ {тилIа}.
1) zapʼanaw {запIанав} with polysemy: 'beautiful / good / lucky / strong' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 171], looks like an Avarism, but the source form has not been found;
NCED: 643. Distribution: Two roots enter into competition:
1) East Tsezic *kʼotʼV [NCED: 724]; lost in West Tsezic;
2) West Tsezic *class=ɨgV (~ -ǝ-) [NCED: 643]; lost in East Tsezic.
There is no internal Tsezic evidence that would allow us to make a single choice. External comparison, however, clearly suggests that the Proto-Tsezic term for 'good' was *class=ɨgV, its cognates mean 'good' or 'right' in Nakh, Avaro-Andian, Dargi, Lezgian. On the other hand, Tsezic *kʼotʼV is either unetymologizable or originates from the meaning 'soft'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 133, 202; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; van den Berg 1995: 321; Bokarev 1961: 162, 175. Polysemy: 'green / blue / grey'. In [van den Berg 1995: 321], glossed as 'dark blue, dark green'. Final -d- is the adjectival suffix [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 236].
A second term for 'green' is heƛ-aɬ-co-ʔos {гьелIалъцоъос} [Khalilov 1995: 80], derived from the noun heƛ-aɬ-co 'green color', further to heƛe 'walnut (a fruit)'. Cf. the attested example: “green dye (paint)” [Khalilov 1995: 281]. This adjective is apparently more marginal than nič-d-iy-o, because heƛ-aɬ-co-ʔos is not quoted in [Madieva 1965].
A second candidate is nik-d-iy-u, glossed in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234, 235] with polysemy: 'blue / green', but other sources only provide the meaning 'blue' for this adjective: [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 277; Forker 2013: 172].
Distinct from the loanword ʡurčinaw {гIурчинав} 'green (applied to plants)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 158] < Avar ʕurčːina-w 'green (of plants)'.
Khalilov 1999: 299, 327; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234. A derived adjective in -si [Khalilov 1999: 437], although the starting noun is not documented.
Sagada Dido:cʼicʼi-r-a {цIицIира}4
Abdulaev 2014. Corresponds to Kidero Dido cʼicʼi-r-a 'red, vermilion (алый)' [Khalilov 1999: 278]. Actually, Sagada cʼicʼi-r-a with the meaning 'green' could be an error due to inaccurate question to a Sagada informant.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: the same loanword qayƛe {хъайлIе} 'green' [Karimova 2014].
Proto-Tsezic:*ničV-
NCED: 592. Distribution: Retained only in East Tsezic with the standard adjectival suffixes; polysemy 'green / blue' is to be reconstructed at least for the Proto-East Tsezic level. Pace [NCED: 592], the root was apparently lost in West Tsezic. A possible external comparandum is the Nakh adjective 'unripe'.
In West Tsezic, expressions for 'green' normally represent various denominative stems (the attested starting nouns are 'first spring grass' and 'leaf'). Such adjectives should be regarded as relatively recent formations.
In Inkhokwari Khwarshi, an Andian loanword is attested.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 91, 194; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42; van den Berg 1995: 310; Bokarev 1961: 157, 173. Generic term with polysemy: 'head hair / body hair / a single hair'.
Khalilov 1995: 146, 299; Madieva 1965: 166. Polysemy: 'head hair / a single hair'. For the collective meaning 'head hair', see examples in [Khalilov 1995: 146] and additionally “There is hair around the forehead” [Madieva 1965: 76].
A second candidate is müčʼ 'head hair', quoted in [Khalilov 1995], but missing from [Madieva 1965]. We treat kẽyã and müčʼ as synonyms.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 271, 423; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42. Plural from the generic term mus 'a single hair'.
Distinct from the more marginal borrowed term kočori {кочори} 'head hair / forelock' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 206] < Georgian kočori 'topknot, tuft of hair'.
Distinct from the specific term čud {чуд} 'mane / forelock, long head hair' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 392], which is, however, quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42] as the generic term for 'head hair'.
Distinct from specific peħ {пехI} 'pubic hair' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 292].
Distinct from Inkhokwari kõ ~ ko 'a single hair' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42; Bokarev 1959: 147, 148, 150, 152].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: kode {коде} [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 34]. It denotes collective 'hair'. Cf. the attested examples: "The girl cut (her) hair by accident" [Khalilova 2009: 324], "As soon as the girl fell asleep, the neighbor tied her hair to the tree" [Khalilova 2009: 87, 403].
There are also two other Kwantlada terms: ko 'hair' [Khalilova 2009: 57, 263] and mɨs ~ mus 'hair' [Khalilova 2009: 64, 65, 135]. Their exact meanings are unknown, at least ko is expected to mean 'a single hair'. Cf. the found example for mɨs ~ mus: "When the man sat on the top of the yoke bending, (his) hair had fallen" [Khalilova 2009: 135].
Proto-Tsezic:*mučʼ B
NCED: 805. Distribution: The relevant Tsezic forms can be summarized in the following table:
'HAIR'
Hunzib
Bezhta proper
Bezhta (other)
Hinukh
Dido
Khwarshi proper
Inkhokwari Khwarshi
*kẽ B[NCED: 697]
single hair / head hair
single hair / head hair
single hair
single hair
single hair
*mučʼ B[NCED: 805]
head hair
head hair
neck
neck
neck
neck
*mosː (~ -u-, -s) [NCED: 805]
single hair / head hair (pl.)
single hair / body hair
hair (unspecified)
hair (unspecified)
*kɔdV A [NCED: 705]
head hair
čoda head hair
head hair
*čo A [NCED: 347]
čoy hair in horse's tail
čud long head hair
ču mane
The Proto-East Tsezic system can be reconstructed as *kẽ 'a single hair' / *mučʼ 'hair (collective), head hair'. In Hunzib, the system became simplified: *mučʼ was eliminated and *kẽ acquired the polysemy 'head hair / body hair / a single hair'. In Bezhta proper, *kẽ acquired the polysemy 'head hair / a single hair' (perhaps independently from the same process in Hunzib).
The Proto-West Tsezic system can be reconstructed as *kẽ 'a single hair' / *kɔdV 'head hair'. In Hinukh & Dido, *kẽ 'a single hair' got lost, having been superseded by *mosː (the original semantics of *mosː was 'a kind of hair'; more exact specification is difficult, but the proto-meaning 'body hair, fur' is very probable, cf. its meaning in Dido); such a replacement should be treated as contact-driven homoplasy between Hinukh & Dido. Additionally, in modern Hinukh, 'head hair' is secondarily expressed as the pl. form of *mosː. In Khwarshi proper, *kɔdV 'head hair' was phonetically influenced by *čo 'horsehair', having substituted initial k- for č- (the similar hybrid form čud is observed in Hinukh, but its meaning 'long head hair' suggests that we more probably deal with a reverse process, when *čo 'mane' > 'long head hair' was influenced by *kɔdV 'head hair').
External comparison (first of all, the Andian comparanda) suggests that the East Tsezic system must be projected onto the Proto-Tsezic level: *kẽ 'a single hair' / *mučʼ 'head hair'. In Proto-West Tsezic, *mučʼ 'head hair' shifted to the meaning 'neck', having been superseded by *kɔdV in the meaning 'head hair'. The original Proto-Tsezic semantics of *kɔdV is unclear; its North Caucasian etymology (if correct!) suggests the meaning 'bush, crown of a tree'.
Khalilov 1995: 148; Madieva 1965: 167. Paradigm: koː [abs.] / ka-s ~ koː-s [gen.]. Meaning is specifically 'hand'. Cf. numerous textual examples in [Khalilov 1995]: “Give me the hand!” [Madieva 1965: 74], “The mother pats the son on the head with the hand” [Madieva 1965: 121], “When they touch (her) with the hand, the mother fell into the chimney of the mill” [Madieva 1965: 128], “The mother said, having put her hand on son's head” [Madieva 1965: 131].
Distinct from bico 'arm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26].
Distinct from specific riƛʼa with polysemy: 'sleeve / foreleg' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26, 130].
As noted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26], there also exists a Khoshar-Khota generic term for 'hand + arm': the compound bico-riƛʼa, literally 'arm' + 'sleeve'. Statistical difference between the more specific koro and the more generic bico-riƛʼa is not described, but we may assume that the situation is the same as in Tlyadal Bezhta q.v.
Distinct from bico 'arm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26].
Distinct from specific riƛʼa 'sleeve' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 130].
According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26], there also exists a Tlyadal generic term for 'hand + arm': the compound bico-riƛʼa, literally 'arm' + 'sleeve'. This one, however, seems more marginal in the meaning 'hand' than the more specific koro, because in all the found examples only koro is attested: “The dog licks the hand” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 230], “Fire burnt the boy's hand” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 231], “The boy burnt his hand with fire” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 231], “Until it (a snake) bit him, his hand was healthy” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 266], “His hands are long” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 280].
Common Bezhta notes:
The loss of Bezhta proper -r- (koː) is normal [Bokarev 1959: 71 ff.].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 197, 515; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26, 27. Paradigm: kʷezey [abs.] / kʷeze-ra- [obl.]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], specified as a generic term for 'hand + arm'; the same follows from the textual examples in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005].
Cf. the specific adverb kʷaː {ква̄} 'in the hand(s)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 197].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: lɨƛʼa ~ luƛʼa ~ liƛʼa {лыкьа, лукьа} with polysemy: 'hand / arm' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 45, 67, 79, 113]. The variants lɨƛʼa ~ luƛʼa are from [Karimova 2014]. In [Khalilova 2009], it is normally transcribed as liƛʼa and seldom as lɨƛʼa. Numerous textual instances for the meaning 'hand' are available in [Khalilova 2009], but no examples for 'arm' are known, however.
Distinct from Kwantlada qot 'palm of hand' [Khalilova 2009: 14, 32].
Distinct from geša 'shoulder' [Khalilova 2009: 45].
Proto-Tsezic:*kʷɨrV
NCED: 706. Distribution: The relevant forms can be summarized in the following table:
'HAND'
Hunzib
Bezhta
Hinukh
Dido
Khwarshi (proper, Inkhokwari)
Kwantlada Khwarshi
*kʷɨrV [NCED: 706]
hand
hand
hand
*bɨ̃cu A[NCED: 307]
arm
arm
arm / sleeve
arm
*rɨƛʼa A [NCED: 779]
sleeve / foreleg
sleeve / foreleg
hand
hand
hand / arm
*gɔšːa (~ -e-, -š-) [NCED: 448]
arm
shoulder
Proto-Tsezic *bɨ̃cu can be safely reconstructed with the meaning 'arm'; in Khwarshi, it was superseded by *gɔšːa, whose original meaning is unclear (its Kwantlada Khwarshi meaning and external etymology, if correct, could point to something like 'shoulder' [NCED: 448]).
Reconstruction of the Proto-Tsezic term for 'hand' is somewhat more problematic. Two stems enter into competition:
1) *kʷɨrV, which can be posited at least as Proto-East Tsezic 'hand' (plus 'hand' in Hinukh, lost in the rest of West Tsezic lects);
2) *rɨƛʼa, which is attested as 'hand' in West Tsezic: Dido plus Khwarshi minus Hinukh. In East Tsezic, it means 'sleeve / foreleg'.
We posit *kʷɨrV as the Proto-Tsezic term for 'hand'. In the Dido-Khwarshi cluster it was superseded by *rɨƛʼa.
Theoretically, however, the opposite solution is also possible: *rɨƛʼa was the Proto-Tsezic term for 'hand', which was superseded by *kʷɨrV in Proto-East Tsezic and secondarily in Hinukh under the influence on the part of East Tsezic.
External comparison speaks in favour of Proto-Tsezic *kʷɨrV 'hand' (its cognates mean 'hand' in Avar, Nakh, Lak, Lezgian, Khinalug [NCED: 706]). But, strictly speaking, we are in a situation of semantic criss-crossing, since external cognates of *rɨƛʼa mean 'hand' in Andian [NCED: 779].
From the geographical point of view, Proto-Andian *riƛʼa 'hand' / Dido-Khwarshi *rɨƛʼa 'hand' is an areal isogloss, which affects the Andian languages together with neighboring Dido & Khwarshi. Thus we suppose that *riƛʼa was the Proto-Andian term for 'hand' (an Andian introduction), which has later influenced the adjacent Tsezic lects (namely Dido & Khwarshi with all their dialects). The original Proto-Tsezic meaning of *rɨƛʼa is unknown (cf. its meanings 'sleeve / foreleg' in East Tsezic).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the consonant metathesis in the oblique stem.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root, meaning specifically 'hand'. Two oblique stems can be reconstructed. The first one is *kʷṼ-, its antiquity is beyond doubt since it is retained in East Tsezic and adverbially in Hinukh. The second oblique stem is *kʷɨrV-zV-, metathesized to *kʷɨzVra-; this one is reflected in the Hinukh paradigm kʷezey [abs.] / kʷeze-ra- [obl.], where the abs. stem is a back formation. Apparently the oblique stem *kʷɨrV-zV- is a secondary Proto-West Tsezic or even Proto-Hinukh introduction, cf. the same pattern in the words for 'bone', 'eye' q.v.
Khalilov 1999: 150, 316; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 10. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the oblique stem is quoted as qʼˤeme- instead of regular qʼˤime-, as in [Khalilov 1999]. Polysemy: 'head / head of cattle / chief / head of the bed'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 134, 233; van den Berg 1995: 322; Bokarev 1961: 162, 180. The model: absolutive (sound) + dative (recipient). Theoretically can be analyzed as *n=ɨd or *n=ɨ̃d with a fossilized directional prefix, for which see [van den Berg 1995: 353].
Distinct from the more marginal verb tuq {тухъа}, which is glossed as 'to hear' in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 155, 233] (with only one example: “He has heard the news”) and as 'to listen' in [van den Berg 1995: 336].
Distinct from the analytic expressions for 'to listen': ãʁa-tuq-le, ãʁa-tuq-kʼe {ангъатухъла, ангъатухъкIа} [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 25, 233; van den Berg 1995: 283], literally 'to put the ear on' with ãʁa 'ear' q.v. and tuq-le, tuq-kʼe 'to lean on, put on'. Additionally, the compound ãʁa-reʁ {ангъарегъа} 'listen' in quoted in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 25, 233] with reʁ '?'.
Khalilov 1995: 241, 336; Madieva 1965: 186. Polysemy: 'to hear / to understand'. The model: absolutive (sound) + dative (recipient).
Distinct from enekzi class=aq {энекзийахъал} with polysemy: 'to listen / to obey' [Khalilov 1995: 292, 336], literally 'to become enekzi', the latter is borrowed from Avar ʕenekːize 'to listen'. See [Madieva 1965: 114] for this complex verb pattern, typical of loanwords.
Distinct from čoq {чохъал} 'to hear of, be aware of' [Khalilov 1995: 277], čʼaɬ {чIалъал} 'to hear that, be aware of' [Khalilov 1995: 279].
Distinct from ä̃ʁä-kʼ-äː {ъʻаIнгъʻаIкIа̄ьл} 'to hear out / to overhear' [Khalilov 1995: 290], derived from ä̃ʁä 'ear' q.v. with the denominative (factitive, causative) suffix -kʼ [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 270; Madieva 1965: 113] and iterative -äː.
Distinct from ʕenekzi class=aq 'to listen' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 172], literally 'to become ʕenekzi', the latter is borrowed from Avar ʕenekːize 'to listen'.
Distinct from ʡenekezi class=iq ~ ʡenekizi class=iq {гIенекези, гIенекизи бихъа} with polysemy: 'to listen / to obey' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 155], literally 'to become ʡenekezi', the latter is borrowed from Avar ʕenekːize 'to listen'.
Khalilov 1999: 235, 376. Polysemy: 'to hear / to understand'. The model: absolutive (sound) + dative (recipient).
Distinct from the expressions for 'to listen':
1) teq-er {техъра} with polysemy: 'to listen / overhear' [Khalilov 1999: 235, 376], causative from teq 'to hear';
2) ʡenekizi class=oq {гIенекизи охъа} with polysemy: 'to listen / to obey' [Khalilov 1999: 108, 376], literally 'to become ʡenekizi', the latter is borrowed from Avar ʕenekːize 'to listen'.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 146, 173. Polysemy: 'to hear / to listen'. The model for the meaning 'to hear': absolutive (sound) + dative (recipient) [Bokarev 1959: 153].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: tuq {тухъа} 'to hear' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 77, 82, 84, 190, 305]. Polysemy: 'to hear / to listen'. The model for the meaning 'to hear': absolutive (sound) + lative (recipient); the model for the meaning 'to listen': ergative (recipient) + absolutive (sound) [Khalilova 2009: 305].
Proto-Tsezic:*tuqʷ B
Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects, although in Hunzib this word is obsolete, being superseded by nɨd (not attested elsewhere). Both *tuqʷ and *n(=)ɨd ~ *n(=)ɨ̃d lack external North Caucasian etymology.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 305, 518; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 34. Polysemy: 'heart / soul / core / root (of plant, tree)' (the synchronic polysemy with 'heart' is secondary from the historical point of view).
NCED: 978. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects, except for Hinukh, where it was superseded by tama ~ tami (pace [NCED: 991 f.], the Hinukh word is of unclear origin).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 39, 239; van den Berg 1995: 306; Bokarev 1961: 156, 181. Examples in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001] make it clear that this is the basic verb for 'to kill'.
Distinct from class=uh-kʼe {бугькIа} 'to spoil / to kill', class=uh-le {бугьла} 'to spoil / to destroy / to kill' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 45, 239; van den Berg 1995: 337; Bokarev 1961: 166, 181] - causatives from class=uhu 'to die / to get spoilt' q.v.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170. Regular causative from class=uʁo 'to die' q.v. The second synonym for 'to kill' is the primary verb class=iƛʼe, quoted by M. Khalilov, p.c.
Khalilov 1999: 49, 387. Polysemy: 'to kill / to spoil'.
Distinct from the causatives from the more rare verbs for 'to die': ɬiyi-r {лъийра} with polysemy: 'to finish (trans.) / to kill' [Khalilov 1999: 175], ɬiqu-r {лъихъура} with polysemy: 'to dry (trans.) / to kill' [Khalilov 1999: 175], ʁutʼ-er {гъутIра} 'to kill' (only of animals?) [Khalilov 1999: 94].
A second equivalent for 'to kill' is class=iha-x {игьаха} 'to kill' [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 115] with the example "The wolf said: 'Should I kill you?'" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117] - regular causative from class=ih 'to die' q.v.
Distinct from the more specific verb class=iχʷ-ad 'to slaughter' [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 119; Bokarev 1959: 148].
Distinct from the more specific Inkhokwari verb class=uχ-ad 'to slaughter' [Bokarev 1959: 148].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=uwoχ {увоха} 'to kill' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 70]. The contracted variant class=oːχ is also attested [Khalilova 2009: 191]. Cf. some examples: "Having fallen, the post killed the man" [Khalilova 2009: 70]; "When they were killed in Finland, and when there was a treaty with them, ..." [Khalilova 2009: 191]; "He was going to kill her" [Khalilova 2009: 195]; "If you like, kill me" [Khalilova 2009: 414]; "Magomed killed Mesedo at the place where she was sleeping" [Khalilova 2009: 420]; "his raven had been killed" [Khalilova 2009: 422]; and so on.
A second Kwantlada candidate is the verb aˤh (i.e., class=aˤh?), quoted with the gloss 'to kill' in [Khalilova 2009: 17], but no examples have been found.
Distinct from the more specific Kwantlada verb class=uχ-ad ~ class=uχˤ-ad 'to slaughter' [Khalilova 2009: 307, 315, 393, 423].
Common Khwarshi notes:
It is likely that =iyaχ (Khwarshi proper) / =oːχ (Inkhokwari) / =uwoχ (Kwantlada) represent the lengthened grade of the root iχʷ (Khwarshi proper) / uχ (Inkhokwari, Kwantlada), attested in the suffixal stems 'to slaughter', quoted above (=iχʷ-ad / =uχ-ad). Cf. similar, although not identical, root lengthening in general tense [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 116; Bokarev 1959: 166; Khalilova 2009: 185]. The main difficulty is that the Khwarshi proper form is =iyaχ 'to kill', not the expected labialized **=iyaχʷ, altough in modern data, collected by Karimova, labialization is often lost.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=iƛʼV
NCED: 661. Distribution: Retained as the basic verb for 'to kill' only in East Tsezic, except for Khoshar-Khota Bezhta; lost in other lects.
In the majority of West Tsezic lects plus Khoshar-Khota Bezhta, the meaning 'to kill' is expressed by synchronic causative stems from the verb 'to die' q.v. (*class=iχʷV [NCED: 635]). In Hunzib, it coexists with *class=iƛʼV.
In Khwarshi, 'to kill' is derived from the verb 'to slaughter' (*class=ĩχːʷV A [NCED: 635], although the causative stem from 'to die' is also present.
External comparison definitely suggests that the Proto-Tsezic verb for 'to kill' was *class=iƛʼV, whereas causative stems from 'to die' represent late introductions (formally, such a causative pattern can be reconstructed for the Proto-West Tsezic level, but it is clearly secondary in Khoshar-Khota Bezhta & Hunzib).
Khalilov 1995: 198. Not quoted in [Madieva 1965]. Cf. the examples in [Khalilov 1995: 198]: “to kneel (lit. to stand at the knees)”, “The knees hurt”.
Distinct from the more specific term ãga {анга} 'knee-cap, patella' [Khalilov 1995: 34], which is quoted, however, in [Madieva 1965: 148] as the basic equivalent for 'knee'.
[Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 77, 454. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32], erroneously glossed as 'knee-cap, patella'.
Distinct from the more specific qʼontu {къонту} 'knee-cap, patella' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 220]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32], erroneously glossed as generic 'knee'.
Distinct from specific qʼontu {къонту} 'knee-cap, patella' [Khalilov 1999: 152], which is transcribed as qʼˤontu and erroneously glossed as generic 'knee' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32].
A second Inkhokwari term for 'knee' is ƛʼehemu {кьегьему} [Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 145, 150]; according to [Karimova 2014], gurtu and ƛʼehemu are full synonyms, but the latter one is less frequently used.
NCED: 1042. Distribution: In many lects the lexical opposition 'knee' (i.e., an external body part) / 'knee-cap' (i.e., a specific bone) is attested, and the same should be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic. Unfortunately, these two concepts are sometimes not distinguished by field linguists, which is why we observe some confusion in the data listed above.
Nevertheless, *bičnV [NCED: 1042] can be safely reconstructed as Proto-Tsezic 'knee'. It is retained in its basic meaning in some East Tsezic (Hunzib, Bezhta proper) and some West Tsezic (Hinukh, Kidero Dido) lects.
In Khoshar-Khota Bezhta & Tlyadal Bezhta, *bičnV was superseded by *ʔãgV, having shifted in the meaning 'shin (part of leg from knee to foot)'. The original meaning of *ʔãgV [NCED: 594] is unclear, but it could be the Proto-East Tsezic term for 'knee-cap' (it means this in Bezhta proper).
In Sagada Dido and Khwarshi proper, the basic term for 'knee' was superseded by *qʼˤɔ(n)tV (if the field records are correct). The original Proto-West Tsezic meaning of *qʼˤɔ(n)tV was 'knee-cap', as it is retained in Hinukh and non-Sagada Dido. In any case, *qʼˤɔ(n)tV with the generic meaning 'knee' is a secondary match between Sagada Dido and Khwarshi proper.
In Inkhokwari Khwarshi, the basic term for 'knee' was superseded by two unclear forms: gurtu (cf. [NCED: 434]) and ƛʼehemu.
Replacements: {'knee' > 'shin (part of leg from knee to foot)'} (Khoshar-Khota Bezhta, Tlyadal Bezhta).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the nasal assimilation b-n > m-n in East Tsezic.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Khalilov 1995: 185, 314; Madieva 1965: 174. Polysemy: 'leaf / sheet of paper / document'.
Distinct from ƛʼapa {кьапа}, which is glossed as 'leaf (of tree or plant)' [Khalilov 1995: 161, 314]; not quoted in [Madieva 1965]. Apparently ƛʼapa is a more marginal term than ƛibo, because all the attested examples for the meaning 'leaf' contain the word ƛibo: “to rustle the leaves” [Khalilov 1995: 37], “Leaves are stirring” [Khalilov 1995: 176], “Stirring of leaves” [Khalilov 1995: 176], “tobacco leaf” [Khalilov 1995: 235], “maple leaves” [Khalilov 1995: 283], “There are a lot of leaves in the tree” Madieva 1965: 89], “Leaves have fallen from the tree” [Madieva 1965: 89].
Khalilov 1995: 136, 314; Madieva 1965: 188. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'. Also, as noted by M. Khalilov (p.c.), class=utʼ is rarely used as 'to sleep', it is not a basic verb for this meaning.
Two synonymous expressions for 'to lie' are quoted in [Khalilov 1995]: primary =utʼ and complex =ãko =eƛʼe. Both with polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'.
Two synonymous expressions for 'to lie down' are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988]: primary =utʼ and complex =ako =eƛʼe. We assume that both actually possess the polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'; the former one, =utʼ, possesses the full polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'.
Two synonymous expressions for 'to lie down' are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988]: primary =utʼ and complex =ãko =eƛʼe. We assume that both actually possess the polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'; the former one, =utʼ, possesses the full polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'.
Common Bezhta notes:
The Common Bezhta collocation class=ãko class=ẽƛʼe consists of the verb =ẽƛʼe 'to go' q.v., regularly inflected with TMA suffixes, and the uninflected element =ãko, whose meaning is unknown, because =ãko is not attested outside of this expression. Formally, =ãko is an adjective.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 99, 460. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'.
Kidero Dido:class=aˤƛʼu {баIкьа}3
Khalilov 1999: 42, 338. Polysemy: 'to lie / to fall (in general) / to go sprawling'.
Two synonymous expressions for 'to lie' are quoted in [Khalilov 1999] and illustrated with a number of textual examples: =aˤƛʼu (also means 'to fall') and kec (also means 'to sleep'). We have to treat them as synonyms.
Sagada Dido:pur-ƛʼor cʼoχʷ {пуркьор цIoxва}5
Abdulaev 2014. Elicited in the contexts "Man can stand, sit, or lie", "Why are you lying in bed?". Literally 'to stick in, being in the lateral position' with lative pur-ƛʼor from pu, obl. pur- 'side (anatomic)' and the verb cʼoχʷ, which corresponds to Kidero cʼoχ 'to get in, stick in' [Khalilov 1999: 279].
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 164, 166, 170. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. In [Bokarev 1959: 163], once transcribed as =aqʷ {ахъва} (a typo).
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=aqˤ {аIхъаI} with polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16, 180].
Proto-Tsezic:*class=itʼʷ
NCED: 1035. Distribution: Tsezic verbs for 'to lie' and 'to sleep' can be summarized in the following table:
'LIE', 'SLEEP'
Hunzib
Bezhta
Hinukh
Kidero Dido
Sagada Dido
Khwarshi
*class=itʼʷ [NCED: 1035]
lie / sleep
lie / sleep
lie / sleep
*class=ãkV [NCED: 644]
lie
*class=aˤƛʼV
lie / fall
*kic
lie / sleep
sleep
class=aqˤ(V)
lie / sleep
?
'be in the lateral position' = lie
?
class=üčäːχe 'sleep'
?
ƛVs 'sleep'
The verb *class=itʼʷ can be safely postulated as the Proto-East Tsezic basic term with polysemy 'to lie / to sleep'. The same meaning in Hinukh could theoretically be explained as th result of secondary influence from East Tsezic, but actually all other West Tsezic verbs for 'to lie' and 'to sleep' can be analyzed as later introductions in individual lects. Thus, the easiest solution is to reconstruct Proto-Tsezic *class=itʼʷ 'to lie / to sleep', which was retained in East Tsezic and Hinukh, having been superseded by various (sometimes obscure) verbs in the majority of West Tsezic lects.
It should be noted that Khwarshi ƛVs 'to sleep' is of unclear origin. The idea that it could be a compound of two verbs *ƛV- 'to sleep' [NCED: 619] and *-Vs 'to sleep' [NCED: 1037] (both are not attested elsewhere in Tsezic, although both possess appropriate North Caucasian comparanda) does not look apt.
Replacements: {'to fall' > 'to lie'} (Kidero Dido); {'to be in the lateral position' > 'to lie'} (Sagada Dido).
A second candidate is the loanword bikinči {бикинчи} with polysemy: 'man / brave man, fine young man' [Khalilov 1995: 46, 317]. This word seems more marginal in the meaning 'man' than the inherited form abo, because in almost all the attested examples for 'man', Bezhta uses abo: “Men have come to see us” [Khalilov 1995: 24], “brave man” [Khalilov 1995: 83], “The men talked until the midnight” [Khalilov 1995: 107], “Quarrel is not man's matter” [Khalilov 1995: 124], “The men were walking around” [Khalilov 1995: 172].
Distinct from borrowed bikinab {бикинаб} 'male' [Khalilov 1995: 46] and betʼerhan {бетIергьан} with polysemy: 'master / husband / Lord' [Khalilov 1995: 44; Madieva 1965: 150].
Khoshar-Khota Bezhta:bixinči-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. With x, not χ? A loanword.
Distinct from the borrowing bikinab 'male' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] and betʼerhän 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59].
Distinct from the inherited form abo 'father' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 54].
Tlyadal Bezhta:bikinči-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59.
Distinct from the borrowing bikinäb 'male' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] and betʼerhan 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59].
Distinct from the inherited form abo 'father' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 54].
Common Bezhta notes:
The Common Bezhta terms bikinči 'man', bikinab 'male', betʼerhan 'husband' represent borrowings from Avar bixinči 'man', bixina-b 'male', betʼerhan 'husband / Lord'. It should be noted that Avar x (missing from the Bezhta system) is replaced by Bezhta k, not by Bezhta χ.
The Bezhta proper meaning 'man' of the inherited form abo 'father' is not obligatorily a Proto-Bezhta feature. Polysemy 'father / man' can be a recent Bezhta proper introduction, as is the parallel case of Bezhta proper polysemy 'mother / woman' for Common Bezhta iyo 'mother' (see notes on 'woman').
Khalilov 1999: 118, 342; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. Polysemy: 'person, human being / man'.
There is also a borrowed term: bikinči {бикинчи} with polysemy: 'man / brave man' [Khalilov 1999: 56] (< Avar bixinči 'man').
Distinct from the inherited term gulu-či 'male' [Khalilov 1999: 86; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] and the borrowed term bikinaw 'male / brave' [Khalilov 1999: 56] < Avar bixina-b 'male'.
Distinct from two terms for 'husband': inherited χediyu ~ χedyu {хедийу} [Khalilov 1999: 246; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59] and borrowed betʼerhan {бетIергьан} 'husband / master / Lord' [Khalilov 1999: 48] (< Avar betʼerhan 'husband / Lord').
Sagada Dido:baħarči {бахIарчи}-1
Abdulaev 2014. Borrowed from Avar baħarči 'brave man, daring fellow'.
Distinct from χol 'husband' [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 95].
Inkhokwari Khwarshi:hikʼo {гьикIо}-1
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Khalilova 2009: 8. Polysemy: 'man / person'. We assume that Inkhokwari hikʼo was borrowed from or at least phonetically influenced by Tindi hekʼʷa 'man / person'.
Distinct from Inkhokwari χol 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59]. It should be noted that in the only instance in [Bokarev 1959: 161], χol is used in the meaning 'man'.
Distinct from Kwantlada χol 'husband' [Khalilova 2009: 15].
Proto-Tsezic:*žikʼʷǝ ~ *zikʼʷǝ A
NCED: 336, 579. Distribution: Generally well preserved, although it tends to be superseded by various loanwords. Normally attested with polysemy 'man / person', which should be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic.
In Bezhta proper, retained in the meaning 'person', but superseded by the inherited *ʔɔbu A 'father' [NCED: 217] in the meaning 'man'.
Replacements: {'father' > 'man'} (Bezhta proper).
Reconstruction shape: Although all the forms are obviously related, reflexes of the initial consonant are quite irregular: *z- in East Tsezic, ž- in West Tsezic, besides that, r- in Hinukh and h- in Inkhokwari Khwarshi (in the latter case, the laryngeal onset can be explained by Andian influence).
Semantics and structure: Perhaps a primary substantive root with polysemy: 'man / person'.
Differently in [NCED: 336, 579], where it is analyzed as a compound (*ž-ikʼʷǝ ~ *z-ikʼʷǝ), which consists of two words for 'man' (both with North Caucasian etymology). The root *ž- ~ *z- is not attested elsewhere in Tsezic, but according to [NCED: 579], Hinukh rekʼʷe and Inkhokwari Khwarshi hikʼo only reflect the second part of the compound < Proto-Tsezic *rikʼʷǝ ~ *hikʼʷǝ (< Pre-Proto-Tsezic *hirkʼʷV). However, such a scenario faces serious difficulties: besides strange phonetic development, it is unclear how plain *hikʼʷǝ could survive in Inkhokwari Khwarshi, when other Khwarshi dialects have *žikʼʷǝ; the same objection is applicable to *rikʼʷǝ in Hinukh.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 153, 213; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; van den Berg 1995: 335.
There are two synonymous adverbs in Hunzib, both with polysemy: 'many / much / often' - telːi and laχːi.
Cf. the discovered examples for telːi 'many': “many errors” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 58], “Many goods were delivered in the store” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 153], “there were many people from Tladal” [van den Berg 1995: 180].
Cf. the discovered examples for laχːi 'many': “there are many goats on our mountain” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 27], “there are many people” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 56], “We heard many songs” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 134], “They took many things in the warehouse” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 149].
We treat telːi and laχːi as synonyms.
A third candidate is class=ižeqʼ with the same polysemy: 'much / many / often' [van den Berg 1995: 307; Bokarev 1961: 156], but this one seems more marginal. The only discovered example is “We don't often (r=ižeqʼ) eat beet” [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 178]. Historically, =iže-qʼ although the suffixal pattern is not entirely clear.
There are multiple Bezhta equivalents for the meanings 'many' or 'much' listed in [Khalilov 1995: 316]. Browsing through the source demonstrates that teli is definitely the most frequent word for the meaning 'many'. Cf. some examples: “The woodcutter has chopped a lot of wood” [Khalilov 1995: 31], “There are many anxieties in the soul” [Khalilov 1995: 50], “People have a lot of cattle” [Khalilov 1995: 51], “There are many people in the railway station” [Khalilov 1995: 53], “a lot of clothes” [Khalilov 1995: 55], “a lot of smoke” [Khalilov 1995: 63], “to prepare many bundles of wood” [Khalilov 1995: 64], “There were many mistakes in the dictation” [Khalilov 1995: 66], “many pebbles” [Khalilov 1995: 67], “many children”, “Many years have passed” [Khalilov 1995: 237], and so on.
Out of the other expressions for 'many', one should mention:
1) äƛä-š {аьлIаьш} with polysemy: 'many / rural, of village' [Khalilov 1995: 32]; the examples: “many people”, “many books”; derived from äƛ 'village, aul; many people, crowd', i.e. 'many' as 'crowd-like';
2) öl-lö {оьллоь} [Khalilov 1995: 212]; the examples: “I have a lot of books (lit.: There are a lot of books of mine)”, “There is a lot of earth tilled with tractor”; regular past tense from öl 'to be sufficient' [Khalilov 1995: 211].
3) ladi {лади} [Khalilov 1995: 316; Madieva 1965: 173], missing from the main section of [Khalilov 1995].
Out of a substantial number of more specific or marginal Hinukh terms for 'many' and 'much' (both inherited and borrowed), one should also mention raɬad {ралъад} with polysemy: 'sea / many' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 299] (< Avar raɬad 'sea').
1) ʡaƛo-s {гIалIос} with polysemy: 'many / rural, of village' [Khalilov 1999: 105], derived from ʡaƛ 'village, aul; many people, crowd', i.e. 'many' as 'crowd-like';
2) χomi {хоми} 'much' [Khalilov 1999: 249];
3) ʡuraw {гIурав} with polysemy: 'enough / many' [Khalilov 1999: 111], borrowed from Avar dial. ʡura-w 'ripe'.
Two different Sagada words for 'many' are offered in [Abdulaev 2014]: ʡaši in the context "There are many stones on the ground" and class=aqʼˤu in the context "I have many friends". We have to treat both forms as synonyms, although it should be noted that Abdullaev's ʡaši in the context "There are many stones on the ground" could actually express a concept of a thick layer of stones.
A second, apparently more marginal, expression for 'many' is dacːa-n {даццан} [Karimova 2014], which is quoted as daca-n 'completely, in full' in [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 121].
A second, apparently more marginal Inkhokwari expression for 'many' is doco-n {доцон} [Karimova 2014].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: ʕezaʕan ~ ʕezeʕan ~ eˤzaʔan {гIезагIан, эIзааIн} 'many' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 132]. Polysemy: 'many / much'. Cf. the examples: "He did many things for his friend to stay" [Khalilova 2009: 418], "The boy became happy to get many presents" [Khalilova 2009: 468].
A second, apparently more marginal, Kwantlada expression for 'many' is doco-n {доцон} [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 283]. Cf. the example: "many mullahs from villages" [Khalilova 2009: 283].
Common Khwarshi notes:
The Common Khwarshi form for 'many / much' originates from something like *eˤz-ya-ʔan, although the suffix -ʔan is not entirely clear.
The competing adverb dacːa-n, doco-n is derived from the interrogative pronoun 'how many?': Khwarshi proper dayci (< *dac-yV) [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 109], Kwantlada doco [Khalilova 2009: 153].
Proto-Tsezic:*teli
Distribution: An unstable word with many (quasi)-synonyms in individual lects.
In East Tsezic (Hunzib, Bezhta), 'many' is expressed by the form *teli. Formally, *teli can be reconstructed as the Proto-East Tsezic term for this meaning. It must be noted, however, that East Tsezic *teli lacks any etymology and therefore represents a potential loanword. In Tlyadal Bezhta, *teli was superseded by class=ä̃tʼä 'many', which looks inherited, but seems to lack any Tsezic etymology.
In Hinukh and the Dido dialects two words with the meaning 'many' occur in a "criss-crossed" interdialectal situation: class=aqʼˤu and (ʡ)aši. In both cases, 'many' is a secondary meaning: class=aqʼˤu originates from Proto-Tsezic *class=uqʼˤV 'big' q.v., (ʡ)aši < Proto-Tsezic *ʕašː- 'thick (2D)' [NCED: 608] (*ʕašː- retaines the meaning 'thick', e.g., in Kidero Dido).
Topologically, the best candidate for the Proto-Tsezic status is *class=iˤžV ~ *-žː- B [NCED: 653], which is attested as the plain stem 'big' in Hinukh and Dido and as the suffixed stem 'many' in Khwarshi (*eˤz-ya-ʔan) and Hunzib (class=iže-qʼ). But the fact that Khwarshi and Hunzib demonstrate different suffixal patterns suggests that we deal with late independent introductions in Khwarshi and Hunzib. The original meaning of *class=iˤžV remains unclear (Hinukh & Dido 'big' q.v. is likewise secondary).
From the external point of view, the best candidate for the Proto-Tsezic status is *laχːi (~ -ʁ-), attested as isolated Hunzib laχːi 'many', but having possible North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'many'. However, it is hard to suppose that *laχːi survived with its original meaning 'many' only in Hunzib.
Formally, we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with East Tsezic *teli, which lacks North Caucasian comparanda.
NCED: 945. Distribution: Two forms enter into competition in this "criss-crossed" configuration:
1) *χːo A [NCED: 1081], meaning 'meat' in East Tsezic plus Hinukh (lost in other West Tsezic lects);
2) *riƛ ~ *liƛ A [NCED: 945], meaning 'meat' in West Tsezic except for Hinukh (lost in East Tsezic).
The stem *χːo as a Proto-Tsezic term for 'meat' has an advantage in terms of distribution, since it is attested in both East Tsezic and West Tsezic branches. External comparison, however, clearly speaks in favor of the meaning 'meat' for Proto-Tsezic *riƛ. Since some secondary contact-driven East Tsezic-Hinukh matches are expected, we prefer to reconstruct *riƛ for Proto-Tsezic 'meat'.
In Proto-East Tsezic it was superseded by *χːo, whose Proto-Tsezic semantics is unclear, although external North Caucasian comparison suggests the meaning 'a k. of fat' [NCED: 1081]. In Hinukh, *χːo also acquired the meaning 'meat' under the influence on the part of East Tsezic.
Replacements: {'a k. of fat' > 'meat'} (Proto-East Tsezic).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 118, 197; van den Berg 1995: 318; Bokarev 1961: 161, 173.
Distinct from bɨzu ~ bɨzǝ {бызу} 'hill' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 46; van den Berg 1995: 288; Bokarev 1961: 152, 182]. However, in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191], bɨzu is quoted as the basic term for 'mountain' with polysemy: 'mountain / hill'.
M. Khalilov, p.c. According to Khalilov, there are two Khoshar-Khota words for 'mountain': märö and bizo. Note that only the latter is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191], but it is possible that we deal with a lexicographic flaw, cf. notes on Tlyadal Bezhta. We treat märö and bizo as synonyms.
Distinct from güh 'hill; heap' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 192], borrowed from Avar goħ 'hill'.
Ya. Testelets, p.c.; M. Khalilov, p.c. The second Tlyadal term for 'mountain' is bizo [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191; M. Khalilov, p.c.]. Note that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], bizo is quoted as the basic Tlyadal term with this meaning that is an error according to Testelets.
Distinct from göħ ~ güħ 'hill; heap' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 192], borrowed from Avar goħ 'hill'.
Khalilov 1999: 267, 316; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191. Polysemy: 'mountain / alpine pasture used in summer'. This is a very common term, cf. the attested examples: "a very big mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 53], "Friends may meet, but mountains never greet" [Khalilov 1999: 118], "to pass over the mountain", "on top of the mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 267], "A high mountain gets eroded by the wind to a greater degree" [Khalilov 1999: 172], "He has climbed the mountain with difficulty" [Khalilov 1999: 261], "They came from the other side of the mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 60], "top of mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 141], "flank of mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 160], "Riddle: what is the thing that has reached the mountain in a moment? Answer: smoke" [Khalilov 1999: 201], "close to the mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 65].
A second candidate is maˤli {маIли}, which is also glossed as generic 'mountain' in [Khalilov 1999: 185], but this term is more marginal, only two textual examples have been discovered: "... to another mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 185], "high mountain" [Khalilov 1999: 202].
Cf. also a compound of the two: ħon-maˤli 'alpine pasture' [Khalilov 1999: 267]
Distinct from the terms for 'hill': inherited šem {шем} [Khalilov 1999: 393] and borrowed guħ {гухI} [Khalilov 1999: 87] (< Avar goħ 'hill').
Distinct from Kwantlada maˤne 'cliff' [Khalilova 2009: 15, 17].
Proto-Tsezic:*maˤru
NCED: 834. Distribution: The Proto-East Tsezic system can be reconstructed as *maˤru 'mountain' [NCED: 834] / *bɨzu 'hill' [NCED: 288]; in Bezhta dialects, *maˤru tends to be superseded by *bɨzu in the meaning 'mountain', although this could be an error in the field records.
The Proto-West Tsezic term for 'mountain' is *χʷen A [NCED: 425], retained in all lects (in East Tsezic it got lost). The stem *maˤru, however, is also present in West Tsezic with the meaning 'cliff' in Khwarshi and marginal 'mountain' in Dido; it is possible that *maˤru should be reconstructed with the Proto-West meaning 'cliff'.
It is impossible to choose between *maˤru and *χʷen proceeding from the internal Tsezic data, but external comparison clearly speaks in favor of *maˤru (its cognates mean 'mountain' in Avar and Nakh). On the other hand, North Caucasian cognates of *χʷen rather point to the original meaning 'northern slope of mountain' vel sim.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for assimilation m-r > m-n in Kwantlada Khwarshi.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. In all Tsezic lects, where *maˤru 'mountain' is retained, synchronic forms demonstrate the homonymy 'mountain' / 'nose' (q.v.). Since direct semantic shifts between these two meanings are typologically unlikely, we follow the solution in [NCED: 825, 834] and suppose that two different North Caucasian roots phonetically merged in Proto-Tsezic *maˤru, yielding the homonymy 'mountain' / 'nose' already on the Proto-Tsezic level.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 182, 230; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14; van den Berg 1995: 334; Bokarev 1961: 170, 180. Polysemy: 'mouth / bottle-neck'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], šikʼu is explained as 'external part of mouth' as opposed to qašu 'internal part of mouth'. Other sources, however, regard šikʼu as the basic generic term 'mouth'. It should be noted that in the Garbutli dialect, šikʼu means 'face' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 182] (a separate Garbutli word for 'mouth' is unknown).
Distinct from qãšu ~ qašu {хъаншу}, which is explained as 'internal part of mouth' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14], but as 'throat, maw, pharynx' in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 167; van den Berg 1995: 326] and 'palatum' [Bokarev 1961: 167]. In the Garbutli dialect, qaša (sic!) means 'mouth of animal' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 220].
Distinct from poro {поро} 'mouth of animal', which is frequently used as a coarse expression for 'human mouth' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 139; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14; van den Berg 1995: 325]. In the Garbutli dialect, poro means 'lip' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 139].
Distinct from bil {бил} 'lip' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 40; van den Berg 1995: 288].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 138, 514; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14. Applied to both humans and animals.
There are two Hinukh terms for 'mouth': haqu and hutʼ. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14], haqu denotes 'internal part of mouth', whereas hutʼ means 'external part of mouth'. As may be seen from the entries in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005], haqu is more frequently used than hutʼ. Nevertheless, we treat both words as synonyms.
Distinct from ƛʼepu {кьепу} 'lip' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 226].
There are two Kidero Dido terms for 'mouth': haqu and hutʼ. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14], haqu denotes 'internal part of mouth', whereas hutʼ means 'external part of mouth'. As may be seen from the entries in [Khalilov 1999], haqu is more frequently used than hutʼ. Nevertheless, we treat both words as synonyms.
Distinct from ƛʼepu {кьепу} 'lip' [Khalilov 1999: 158].
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14; Bokarev 1959: 145, 146. Polysemy: 'mouth / lip / beak'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], maˤƛʼu is explained as 'external part of mouth' as opposed to zɨze 'internal part of mouth'. Actually, zɨze should be a locative adverb 'in the mouth', see notes on Kwantlada Khwarshi.
Distinct from the Kwantlada locative adverb zɨz-e ~ zuz-e 'in the mouth' [Khalilova 2009: 112, 113], derived from the lost noun *zɨz(V) with the specific suffix -e.
Proto-Tsezic:*haqu ~ *hãqu
NCED: 526. Distribution: West Tsezic lects demonstrate the lexical opposition 'internal part of mouth' / 'external part of mouth', although it is not clear whether the same opposition should be projected onto the Proto-Tsezic level.
The Proto-East Tsezic generic term for 'mouth' is *šikʼu (~ *šː-) [NCED: 978]; in West Tsezic this root was lost.
The Proto-West Tsezic opposition can be reconstructed as *haqu (~ -ã-) 'internal part of mouth' [NCED: 526] / *hũtʼ 'external part of mouth' [NCED: 496]. Such a system is retained in Hinukh & Dido. In Khwarshi proper, *hũtʼ became the only generic term for 'mouth'. In Inkhokwari Khwarshi & Kwantlada Khwarshi, both terms were superseded by *bõƛʼV A, whose original Proto-Tsezic meaning was 'beak' [NCED: 1041].
West Tsezic *hũtʼ 'external part of mouth' corresponds to the meanings 'wart, verruca' in East Tsezic (Hunzib hũtʼ 'wart, verruca' ~ hutʼ 'nipple' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 68-69]) that implies the original Proto-Tsezic meaning 'wart, verruca' or 'excrescence' with the Proto-West Tsezic semantic development > 'lip' > 'external part of mouth'.
If we reconstruct the opposition 'internal part of mouth' / 'external part of mouth' for Proto-Tsezic, *haqu, according to the 'leftover principle', can be posited as Proto-Tsezic 'internal part of mouth' (retained only in Hinukh & Dido), whereas *šikʼu - as Proto-Tsezic 'external part of mouth' (retained only in East Tsezic).
If we proceed from the single generic term 'mouth' in Proto-Tsezic, it is impossible to make a choice between *haqu and *šikʼu, because external comparison does not provide any help here.
We prefer to fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with two roots.
Replacements: {'mouth' > 'face'} (Garbutli Hunzib); {'beak' > 'mouth'} (Inkhokwari Khwarshi); {'wart, verruca' > 'external part of mouth'} (Proto-West Tsezic).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 172, 203; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 212; van den Berg 1995: 290. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], transcribed as cãːru; additionally, in [van den Berg 1995] the variant cɑ̃r is quoted.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *cʷǝrV- (in Proto-East Tsezic, the direct stem was leveled after the oblique one).
1) *boʫo A [TsezEDb], which means 'neck' in East Tsezic and 'bead necklace' in West Tsezic;
2) *mučʼ B[NCED: 805], which means 'neck' in West Tsezic and 'head hair' in East Tsezic.
Since the shift 'neck' > 'necklace' is much more natural than in the opposite direction, whereas *mučʼ is the good candidate for the Proto-Tsezic meaning 'head hair' q.v., we can safely postulate *boʫo as the Proto-Tsezic term for 'neck' despite the fact that *boʫo seems to lack external North Caucasian etymology.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 185, 217; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; van den Berg 1995: 308; Bokarev 1961: 170, 178. In [Isakov & Khalilov 2001], the innovative denasalized form ɨcʼː-u {ыцIцIу} is also quoted.
Khalilov 1995: 195, 320. Literally 'time at night' with meχ 'time' and the adverb niše {нише} 'at night' [Khalilov 1995: 208]. In [Madieva 1965: 179], however, niše is simply glossed as 'night'.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 170, 477. Literally 'evening time', consisting of nesaː {неса̄} 'evening / in the evening / at night', gen. nesaː-s {неса̄с} 'of evening' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 276; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211] and the borrowed term zaman 'time' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 170] (< Avar zaman 'time').
Distinct from the paronymous temporal adverb neši {неши} 'at night' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 277], inaccurately glossed as generic 'night' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211].
It is likely that neši was the original Hinukh word for 'night' with the regular essive form nes-aː 'at night' or 'in the evening' (the essive ending -aː), the latter, however, has spread across the paradigm and serves now as the direct and oblique stems.
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211], the Kidero word for 'night' is erroneously quoted as inherited neširu, which actually means 'in the evening' [Khalilov 1999: 199].
The inherited Inkhokwari noun nišV is retained in the fossilized adessive form nišo-ho 'at night / in the evening' [Bokarev 1959: 160; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: the same loanword reɬa {релъа} 'night' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 10, 14, 160].
The inherited Kwantlada noun nišV is retained in the fossilized adessive form nišo-ho 'at night' [Khalilova 2009: 129, 145].
Common Khwarshi notes:
Common Khwarshi reɬa 'night' is borrowed from Tindi reɬa 'night'.
Proto-Tsezic:nišːe
NCED: 524. Distribution: A rather stable stem, attested in almost all the lects, although in West Tsezic, it tends to be superseded by Avar or Tindi loanwords, although it is retained in the locative adverbialized forms 'at night'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 210 ff.; van den Berg 1995: 77, 84-87, 89-92; Bokarev 1959: 60. The system of Hunzib verbal exponents of negation of assertion is complex. The suffix -atʼ is used for the present tense (both finite forms and participles) and finite intentional; the related suffix -itʼ is used for past gerund. The suffix -is is used for past tense (both finite forms and participles) and masdar; the related complex suffix -o-ys is used for finite aorist and finite future. We fill the slot with -atʼ and -is, treated as synonyms.
Additionally, the negative present copula gɑ-čʼ (in Garbutli and Naxada: gɑ-č) 'it is not' plus gerund, participle or infinitive can form a complex predicate with negative meaning.
Prohibitive is formed with the suffix -ɑːqʼ(o) [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 211; van den Berg 1995: 87; Bokarev 1959: 60]. Additionally, in [van den Berg 1995: 99], the prohibitive suffix -(V)dor is mentioned.
Khalilov 1995: 406; Madieva 1965: 132. As noted in [Khalilov 1995: 406; Madieva 1965: 132], negation of assertion is normally expressed with the suffixes -aʔa-s ~ -aʔa ~ -aʔ (present) and -eʔe-š ~ -eʔe ~ -eʔ (preterite). Statistical correlation between the full forms of the suffixes (in -s/-š) and the simple one is not described. Alternatively, negation can be expressed with the negative copula gäʔä [Khalilov 1995: 59, 414; Madieva 1965: 143]. Other than that, the past participle is negated with the suffix -ečʼe [Khalilov 1995: 406; Madieva 1965: 134].
The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -aqʼa [Khalilov 1995: 406; Madieva 1965: 126].
Bokarev 1959: 106; Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 258. Negation of assertion is normally expressed with the suffixes -aʔa ~ -aʔ (present) and -eʔe ~ -eʔ (past); alternately, negation can be expressed with the negative copulae: present gäʔ(ä) and preterit zuqʼeʔ [Bokarev 1959: 106; Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 258]. Besides that, the past participle is negated with the suffix -ečʼe / -ecʼe [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 264; Bokarev 1959: 106].
The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -aqʼa [Bokarev 1959: 106; Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 259].
Forker 2013: 195, 198; Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 585; Isakov & Khalilov 2004: 194; Lomtadze 1963: 154. Negation of assertion is expressed with the verbal suffix -m-e in general tense and simple past (in intentional future: -m-i). On the contrary, in simple present tense and various non-finite forms, an analytic construction with the negative copula go-m is used [Forker 2013: 199, 212; Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 585].
The prohibitive exponent is the same suffix -m, attached to the imperative suffix -o [Forker 2013: 230; Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 588; Lomtadze 1963: 154; Imnaishvili 1963: 202 f.].
Khalilov 1999: 443; Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004: 145; Bokarev 1959: 215 ff.; Imnaishvili 1963: 197 ff. As described in the aforementioned sources, negation of assertion can be expressed either synthetically or analytically (in some categories, synthetic and analytic forms may co-occur). In present and past non-evidential, the negative copula aːnu attached as a suffix or enclitic is used. In general tense, past evidential, future, either the suffix -čʼV (it has the free variant -nčʼV, which is probably more rare) or the negative suffixed copula zow-čʼu-s are used. We treat aːnu and -čʼV as synonyms.
The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -n/-no [Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004: 143; Bokarev 1959: 216.].
Imnaishvili 1963: 201 f. As described by Imnaishvili, in the present tense, negation of assertion is expressed by the enclitic yaːɬ (instead of Kidero aːnu); this negative copula yaːɬ is related to the positive copula yoɬ (historically y=oɬ) 'to be' [Imnaishvili 1963: 215]. In the general tense, the suffix -a is used; in the future, the suffix -čʼu; in the past, either -eː-čʼu or -čʼi. We treat yaːɬ, -a and -čʼV as synonyms.
Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117-118; Bokarev 1959: 170-171. As described in [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117-118; Bokarev 1959: 170-171] (confirmed by [Karimova 2014]), negation of assertion is expressed synthetically with the help of several suffixes: present, general tense -ate; witnessed past -ay; unwitnessed past -b-čʼi; in the future the negative copula go-b-čʼi is used. We treat -ate and -ay as synonyms.
The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -yu [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117] (with sandhi *Cy > Cː or yC).
As described in [Bokarev 1959: 170-171] (confirmed by [Karimova 2014]), negation of assertion is expressed synthetically with the help of several suffixes: present -ate; general, future -bi, witnessed past -bu; unwitnessed past -ay. We treat -ate and -bi as synonyms.
The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -bo / -ba [Bokarev 1959: 170].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: as described in [Khalilova 2009: 203] (confirmed by [Karimova 2014]), negation of assertion is expressed synthetically with the help of three suffixes: present -ate; general, future, witnessed past -bi; unwitnessed past -ay. The prohibitive exponent is the suffix -bo [Khalilova 2009: 247].
Proto-Tsezic:*=V ~ *=ʔV ~ *=Vʔ
NCED: 541. Distribution: The synchronic systems of negation exponents in the attested lects are rather well developed and complicated. Apparently, a similar complexity is to be supposed for the Proto-Tsezic system, which can hardly be revealed in all details. We can safely reconstruct at least two morphemes that functioned as primary negation exponents in Proto-Tsezic:
1) present *-V ~ *-ʔV ~ *-Vʔ [NCED: 541]. In East Tsezic, it is used for present (Bezhta); in West Tsezic, for general tense (Dido).
2) preterit *-čʼ [NCED: 1101]. In East Tsezic, it is used for the negative copula (Hunzib) or for past participle (Bezhta); in West Tsezic, for general tense (Dido), past (Dido, Khwarshi) or the negative copula (Dido, Khwarshi).
The Proto-Tsezic prohibitive exponent is likely to have been the suffix -m, retained as -m in Hinukh, but with unexplainable mutations > -n in Dido and > -b in Khwarshi; superseded by *-VqʼV in East Tsezic. It should be noted that this prohibitive exponent also spreads to negation of assertion in Hinukh and Inkhokwari Khwarshi.
Reconstruction shape: The unspecified vowel V was most likely a.
NCED: 323. 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 onset s- instead of expected h- in Dido due to contamination with the oblique stem.
Semantics and structure: Primary numeral root. The oblique stem is *sːɨ-.
Number:64
Word:person
Hunzib (proper):insan {инсан}-1
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 84, 243; van den Berg 1995: 306. The form ʕadam {гIадам} 'person' is also attested [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 70; van den Berg 1995: 344]. Both terms represent diffused Oriental (originally Arabic) words for 'person, human being'.
Additionally, the inherited term sukʼu 'man' q.v. can be glossed with polysemy: 'man / person' in some sources.
In [Karimova 2014], only the borrowing hadam {гьадам} 'person' is quoted.
Inkhokwari Khwarshi:hikʼo {гьикIо}-1
Bokarev 1959: 144, 145, 149. Polysemy: 'man / person'. We assume that Inkhokwari hikʼo was borrowed from or at least phonetically influenced by Tindi hekʼʷa 'man / person'.
In [Karimova 2014], only two wandering words for 'person' are quoted: hadam {гьадам}, insan {инсан}.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: hadam ~ ʕadam {гьадам} [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 11]. In [Karimova 2014], the synonym insan {инсан} 'person' is also quoted.
Common Khwarshi notes:
Original equivalents žikʼʷa and hikʼo tend to be superseded by the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) words hadam and insan.
Proto-Tsezic:*žikʼʷǝ ~ *zikʼʷǝ A
NCED: 336, 579. Distribution: Retained in the majority of lects, although the word tends to be superseded by various loanwords. Further see notes on 'man'.
Semantics and structure: Perhaps a primary substantive root with polysemy: 'man / person'.
NCED: 1010. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in East Tsezic and some West Tsezic lects (Inkhokwari Khwarshi, Kwantlada Khwarshi). The external North Caucasian data are in perfect agreement with this. In the rest of West Tsezic, namely Hinukh, Dido and Khwarshi proper, 'rain' is expressed by *qɨma A ~ *qima B [NCED: 737]. Such a replacement should be treated as an independent introduction in Hinukh, Dido and Khwarshi proper.
The original meaning of Proto-Tsezic *qɨma is not entirely clear. Its East Tsezic cognates point to the meaning 'cloudy, dull': the adjectives Khoshar-Khota Bezhta qima-r-o {хъимаро} = Bezhta proper qima-y-o ~ qimaː {хъимайо, хъима̄} 'cloudy, dull' [M. Khalilov, p.c.], modified with the adjective/participle suffix -r-. Additionally, according to M. Khalilov, qima-r-o and qima-y-o can be substantivized with the meaning 'cloudiness, assemblage of clouds'. Unattested Bezhta *qima (an adjective or substantive) served as the basis of inchoative and causative verbs: Bezhta proper qima-ɬ- 'to gloom, be overcast', qima-kʼ- 'to cause to gloom, cause to be overcast' [Khalilov 1995: 262] (for the verbal suffixes -ɬ and -kʼ, see [Madieva 1965: 113]). It is likely that Bezhta retains the original substantival meaning 'cloudiness' or the adjectival meaning 'cloudy, dull', whereas in some West Tsezic lects, *qɨma has shifted to 'cloudiness / cloudy' > 'rain'. This agrees with the external comparison [NCED: 737], which suggests something like 'a k. of cloudy or rainy weather, fog, etc.' for Proto-Tsezic *qɨma.
Distinct from the homophonous Proto-Tsezic *ʁːʷǝdǝ 'day' [NCED: 481] (which causes the secondary homonymy 'rain' / 'cloud' in East Tsezic). That we are dealing with two different roots, which coincided in Proto-Tsezic *ʁːʷǝdǝ, is suggested by the fact that the semantic shifts between the meanings 'rain' and 'day' are typologically odd. Indeed, both meanings could originate from something like 'sky', but external comparison proves the antiquity of the meaning 'rain' for *ʁːʷǝdǝ.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 174, 208; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; van den Berg 1995: 291, 349; Bokarev 1961: 168, 176. Final -d- is an adjectival suffix [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 236].
Differently in the Garbutli dialect, where 'red' is expressed as hakʼa-s {гьакIас} [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 61, 208], literally 'of flower, floral' from hakʼ 'flower'. In Hunzib proper, hakʼa-s means simply 'floral' and additionally either 'yellow' (thus [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 61], although the basic Hunzib proper expression for 'yellow' q.v. is an Avar loanword) or 'pink' (thus [van den Berg 1995: 300, 349]). In the Naxada dialect, hakʼa-s means 'yellow' [van den Berg 1995: 300, 349].
Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in East Tsezic and some West Tsezic (Hinukh, Dido) lects.
In Khwarshi, *cʼudV- was superseded by *ʔutʼV- (~ *ħ-) [NCED: 541], whose original Proto-Tsezic meaning is unclear, since it is not preserved outside Khwarshi dialects.
It is interesting that *cʼudV- lacks a North Caucasian etymology, whereas *ʔutʼV- has some very promising North Caucasian comparanda, meaning 'red' in Lak and Dargi. Unfortunately, distribution clearly prevents *ʔutʼV- from being posited as the basic Proto-Tsezic term for 'red'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for medial -n- in some East Tsezic forms.
Semantics and structure: Primary adjectival stem. The only difficulty is -n-, which appears in this adjective in two adjacent lects: Hunzib proper cʼund-u, Tlyadal Bezhta cʼund-iy-o. It is possible that Hunzib cʼund-u originates from *cʼud-du with the occasional dissimilation dd > nd, where final -du is the well-known adjectival suffix. In turn, Tlyadal Bezhta cʼund-iy-o can be explained in the same way < *cʼud-d-iy-o. It is natural to suppose that such a dissimilation appeared in one of the lects, which further influenced its neighbor.
The noun biʁa {бигъа} is the Common Bezhta term for 'foundation, building base' [Khalilov 1995: 45; Madieva 1965: 150; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 175]; it has secondarily acquired the meaning 'tree root' in Khoshar-Khota.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 307, 456; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97. The synchronic polysemy: 'root / heart' is secondary from the historical point of view.
A second, more marginal candidate is ʡarƛʼel {гIаркьел} 'root (of tree)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 153], borrowed from Avar ʕarƛʼːel 'branch' (sic).
Kidero Dido:ʡarƛʼel {гIаркьел}-1
Khalilov 1999: 106, 334. Polysemy: 'root / branch'; applied specifically to trees or represents a generic term. Borrowed from Avar ʕarƛʼːel 'branch'.
Distinct from the more specific inherited term rokʼo {рокIо} 'root (of plant)' [Khalilov 1999: 220] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97], it is quoted as a basic word for 'root'). Cf. rokʼu 'heart' q.v.
NCED: 827. Distribution: Two stems enter into competition:
1) *χːemuχː (~ ʁ-...-ʁ) [NCED: 827], meaning 'root' in East Tsezic, lost in West Tsezic;
2) *rɔkʼV [NCED: 745], meaning 'root' in West Tsezic, lost in East Tsezic.
It is impossible to make a choice based only on Tsezic data itself. External comparison, if correct, suggests Lak and Dargi cognates with the meaning 'root' for *χːemuχː which makes *χːemuχː an overall better candidate.
In Hinukh and Dido, the word tends to be superseded by an Avar loanword.
Replacements: {'foundation, building base' > 'root'} (Khoshar-Khota Bezhta).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for vocalic assimilation e-u > u-u in Hunzib.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 55; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; van den Berg 1995: 297; Bokarev 1961: 152, 176. Final -d- is an adjectival suffix [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 236].
Apparently, gerdu is an inherited adjective, unrelated to Azerbaijani girdä 'round' and other Turkic forms, because, first, Hunzib gerdu has a reliable Tsezic etymology [NCED: 447], second, Turkic loanwords normally penetrate into Hunzib via Avar mediation [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 289 ff.], whereas, to the best of our knowledge, there are no similar forms in Avar.
Madieva 1965: 153. Apparently with polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'. In [Khalilov 1995: 59], gey-d-iy-o is glossed as 'oval' (the example: “oval stone”).
Khalilov 1999: 82, 336; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. Polysemy: 'round / corpulent (of child)'. Attested examples hint at the specific meaning 'round 2D': "round face" [Khalilov 1999: 82], "round (official) stamp" [Khalilov 1999: 208], "round mirror" [Khalilov 1999: 286].
There are also two other documented terms for 'round':
1) gugur-u {гугуру} with polysemy: 'round / hilly, raised' [Khalilov 1999: 85], the only example is "round stone" [Khalilov 1999: 85];
2) qʼolħo-riɬe {къолхIорилъе} 'round' [Khalilov 1999: 152], literally 'ball-like' from qʼolħo 'ball'; the only example is "round stone" [Khalilov 1999: 152].
Sagada Dido:gurginaw {гургинав}-1
Abdulaev 2014. Borrowed from Avar gurgina-w 'round'.
Khwarshi (proper):kʼorkʼolu {кIоркIолу}-1
Karimova 2014. Borrowed from Tindi kʼorkʼalu 'round'.
The inherited Khwarshi proper word for 'round' is quoted in [Khalilova 2009: 7]: germa, although its exact synchronic meaning is not explained.
Apparently with polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D' in all the dialects.
Proto-Tsezic:*gVr-
NCED: 447. Distribution: This root is always modified with suffixes, which, however, differ among languages. For Proto-East Tsezic, we can reconstruct *ger-d-(iy)-u 'round' with the common adjectival suffixes *-d- and *-y- (the stem in -d- is attested in all East Tsezic lects). For Proto-West Tsezic, we reconstruct *gɨr-ma 'round' with a rare and non-productive m-suffix.
In Hinukh gemer-d-iy-u 'round', we see the synchronic root gemer-, which is to be explained via occasional metathesis < *gemr- < *ger-m- (the additional suffix chain -d-iy- is standard for Hinukh adjectives).
Bezhta proper gomor-d-iy-o 'round' looks like a borrowing from Hinukh (cf. especially the retention of -r- that is typical of recent loanwords). A more archaic loanword from the same source should be Bezhta proper gomoy-d-iy-o 'round object (apple, grapes, bread, etc.)' which penetrated into Bezhta before the shift r > y. The main obstacle for the Hinukh > Bezhta scenario is the vowel discrepancy between the Hinukh (e-e) and Bezhta (o-o) forms.
Replacements: {'ball' > 'round'} (Kidero Dido).
Reconstruction shape: Vocalic correspondences are irregular: East Tsezic data point to the root vowel *-e-, West Tsezic - to *-ɨ-. For the metathesis rm > mr in Hinukh, see above.
Semantics and structure: It is unclear which suffix should be reconstructed for this stem in Proto-Tsezic: *-d- (as in East Tsezic) or *-m- (as in West Tezic). Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D' in Proto-Tsezic.
Khalilov 1995: 63, 312. This adjective is quoted in [Khalilov 1995] as the basic term for 'round' (examples show polysemy: '3D / 2D'). Because of -r-, it does not look like a normal Bezhta proper form. A more regular shape of this word is quoted in [Madieva 1965: 154] as gomoy-d-iy-o, glossed as 'round apple, grapes, bread, nuts, head, pumpkin, egg'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 90, 221; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; van den Berg 1995: 310; Bokarev 1961: XXX, XXX.
A second, probably more marginal or specific, term is mɨsu {мысу}, glossed with polysemy: 'sand / gravel' in [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 128, 221], but only as 'crushed stone, road metal' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; van den Berg 1995: 320]. In [Bokarev 1961: 162, 178], however, mɨsu is glossed with the generic meaning 'sand'.
Abdulaev 2014. Corresponds to Kiderogibu 'sand', with medial -m- influenced by Azerbaijani gum 'sand', widespread among languages of Daghestan as a wandering word.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: gebu {гебу} 'road' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 51]. In [Khalilova 2009], transcribed as gabi - probably an error.
Proto-Tsezic:*kebu A
NCED: 713. Distribution: Two stems enter into competition:
1) *kebu A [NCED: 713], which means 'sand' in East Tsezic (Hunzib proper) and West Tsezic (all lects except for Hinukh). In Hinukh, it means 'dust';
2) *mɨsːV A [NCED: 794], which means 'sand' in East Tsezic (Bezhta) and West Tsezic (Hinukh). In Hunzib proper, it means 'gravel, road metal'.
Formally, this is a "criss-crossed" situation, but actually *mɨsːV, which appears in the meaning 'sand' in two contacting lects, should be treated as an areal innovation. Apparently, *mɨsːV acquired the meaning 'sand' in Proto-Bezhta (since it is present in all Bezhta dialects), then Bezhta influenced Hinukh, where *kebu 'sand' subsequently shifted to the meaning 'dust'.
The original Proto-Tsezic meaning of *mɨsːV can be 'gravel, road metal', as attested in Hunzib proper.
It is interesting that it is Proto-Tsezic *mɨsːV which possesses external cognates with the meaning 'sand' (Chadakolob Avar), but unfortunately the principles of internal reconstruction do not permit us to postulate Proto-Tsezic *mɨsːV 'sand'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 134, 232; van den Berg 1995: 322; Bokarev 1961: 162, 180. Historically, *n=ɨs(ǝ) or *n=ɨ̃s(ǝ) with the directional prefix n=, for which see [van den Berg 1995: 353].
Distinct from ãgaš ~ ãgiš-l-aː ~ ãgši-l-aː 'to talk, speak' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 25, 196; van den Berg 1995: 283; Bokarev 1961: 150]. The element ãgaš ~ ãgiš is morphologically unclear; in [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 323], it is explained as onomatopoeic, but this is not highly likely.
Distinct from iƛe {илIа} 'to call, cry, ring' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 202; van den Berg 1995: 306].
Distinct from the particle ƛe {лIе}, which serves as a quotative marker [Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 224; van den Berg 1995: 134].
Khalilov 1995: 207, 335; Madieva 1965: 178. Polysemy: 'to say / to give away, betray'.
A second verb for 'to say' is class=ekʼ {йекIал} [Khalilov 1995: 115]. The semantic difference between niso and class=ekʼ is unclear, but, as noted by M. Khalilov (p.c.), the latter is marginal (correspondingly, only niso is quoted in the glossary [Madieva 1965]).
Distinct from class=iqʼlaše {йикълашал} 'to speak' [Khalilov 1995: 120; Madieva 1965: 162], whose morphological structure is not entirely clear. Looks like the stem =iqʼe-l 'to get to know; to let know; to teach' [Khalilov 1995: 120] (regular causative from =iqʼe 'to know' q.v.)plus unique suffix -aše.
Distinct from iƛe {илIал} 'to call / to sing / to talk' [Khalilov 1995: 18, 307].
Distinct from the particle ƛo {лIо}, which serves as a quotative marker [Khalilov 1995: 187, 409].
Distinct from wär-ƛö 'to speak' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 148; Khalilov 1995: 55]. Historically, a compound, where the second element ƛö is a verbum dicendi *ʔiƛV- (> Bezhta proper iƛe 'to call, cry' [Khalilov 1995: 307; Madieva 1965: 163]). For Bezhta complex verbs in -ƛo/-ƛe with the semantics of 'mouth', see [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 273].
Common Bezhta notes:
Historically, *n=iso or *n=ĩso with the fossilized directional prefix.
Distinct from eƛi {элIа} with polysemy: 'to call, cry / to say / to sing' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 405]; cf. the quoted examples with the meaning 'to say': "To say a word", "To say incorrecly", although it is not the default verb for this meaning.
Khalilov 1999: 296, 375. Polysemy: 'to say / to sing'.
Distinct from esi {эса} 'to say, report, inform' [Khalilov 1999: 297]; it is not the default verb for 'to say'. In Asakh Dido, the corresponding verb is esʷV {эсва} [Khalilov 1999: 298] (apparently with the same meaning) that implies a Proto-Tsezic labialized sibilant.
Distinct from class=aƛʼi {бакьа} with polysemy: 'to talk / to abuse, swear / to gossip, tittle-tattle / to be mistaken in smth.' [Khalilov 1999: 36, 315].
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 164, 167. Cf. the attested examples: "He has said (it) to the woman" [Bokarev 1959: 157], "He has said (it) to this woman" [Bokarev 1959: 158], "He has said (it) them" [Bokarev 1959: 160], "The teacher said that tomorrow..." [Bokarev 1959: 174].
A second Inkhokwari candidate is the verb is {иса} 'to say (сказать)' [Bokarev 1959: 146, 164, 167, 169, 170, 171]. Its meaning seems to be very close to iƛ, but since is is not attested in the available textual instances, it should be more marginal than common iƛ.
A third Inkhokwari verb is esa {эса} 'to say (сказать)' [Bokarev 1959: 163], without any additional information. It is likely that is and esa represent different transcriptions of one Inkhokwari verb.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: iƛ {илIа} 'to say' [Karimova 2014]. This is the most generic and common verb for 'to say'. Cf. some of the numerous instances: "the (other) woman who was there said that the boy was born..." [Khalilova 2009: 44], "'Give this thing for four (rubles),' the tradesman said" [Khalilova 2009: 76], "They said to one man to put the head into the pit where the bear was" [Khalilova 2009: 78], "'You tell (is) me, where is your most tasty meat?' the wolf said (iƛ)" [Khalilova 2009: 84], "'There is blood on your lip,' the witch said" [Khalilova 2009: 86], "The older one said to the younger one, 'What was written in the letter?'" [Khalilova 2009: 106], "He said nothing" [Khalilova 2009: 160], "If the girl had told (iƛ), the boy would have thrown the ball from the roof" [Khalilova 2009: 194].
The second Kwantlada candidate is is 'to say' [Khalilova 2009: 29, 37], but it is less common and its meaning is closer to 'to tell'. Cf. some examples: "'You tell (is) me, where is your most tasty meat?' the wolf said (iƛ)" [Khalilova 2009: 84], "He said right" [Khalilova 2009: 123], "If mother had said, the daughter would have milked the cow" [Khalilova 2009: 195], "Our father used to tell us riddles" [Khalilova 2009: 199], "This girl did not say to anyone that she had been left in the forest by this neighbor" [Khalilova 2009: 211].
Distinct from Kwantlada un 'to speak' in the example "The woman did not say a word, she did not speak (un)" [Khalilova 2009: 202].
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔiƛV
NCED: 572. Distribution: A complicated case with two verbs entering into competition.
1) *isːʷV ~ *ɨsːʷV (~ *ĩ- ~ *ɨ̃-)A [NCED: 642] (for the traces of a labialized sibilant, see notes on Kidero Dido). This one is attested as the basic verb 'to say' in all East Tsezic lects and can be safely reconstructed with this meaning for Proto-East Tsezic. Already in Proto-East Tsezic, it was linked with the fossilized directional prefix n=, a development unparalleled by West Tsezic data. This verb is also present in West Tsezic: as a basic term for 'to say' in Hinukh, and residually in the Dido and Khwarshi dialects, where it means 'to say', but does not function as the most basic expression for this meaning.
2) *ʔiƛV [NCED: 572]. This one is attested as the basic verb 'to say' in some West Tsezic languages, namely Dido and Khwarshi (all dialects). Residually it is present in Hinukh, where it means 'to say', but does not function as a basic expression for this meaning. In East Tsezic, *ʔiƛV normally means 'to call, cry' and 'to talk', but both in Hunzib and Bezhta, this root is also retained as a quotative clitic (typologically, 'to say' is the most natural source of a quotation exponent). In all Tsezic languages, *ʔiƛV is used as the second element of complex verbs denoting sound (the pattern: sound + *ʔiƛV, see notes on 'to drink') that additionally could speak in favor of the original meaning 'to say' for *ʔiƛV.
From the formal distributive point of view, *isːʷV has some advantage over *ʔiƛV. The situation changes if we look at external North Caucasian etymology. Proto-Tsezic *ʔiƛV possesses very good comparanda with the basic meaning 'to say': Andian *hiƛʼː- 'to say', Nakh *ʔaːɬ- 'to say' [NCED: 572]. On the other hand, the external cognates of Proto-Tsezic *isːʷV mean something like 'to tell' [NCED: 642]. Because of this, we prefer to posit *ʔiƛV as the main Proto-Tsezic verb for 'to say', which was superseded in its basic function by *n=ɨsːʷV in Proto-East Tsezic. In such a case, *isːʷV with the meaning 'to say' in Hinukh is either an independent introduction or a result of influence on the part of East Tsezic.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 119, 193; van den Berg 1995: 283; Bokarev 1961: 150, 173. Polysemy: 'to see / to be seen, visible'.
Distinct from the verbs for 'to look', which consist of the root =ɑcʼǝ and fossilized directional prefixes (without semantic difference between the resulting stems): nV=class=ɑcʼǝ, tV=class=ɑcʼǝ, and specifically in the Naxada dialect: gV=class=ɑcʼǝ [van den Berg 1995: 299, 322, 336, 348, 353].
Cf. the mirroring set of verbs with the same root: r=class=ɑcʼǝ, t=class=ɑcʼǝ, g=class=ɑcʼǝ 'to show up, emerge' [van den Berg 1995: 298, 331, 335, 353].
It is possible that =ãcʼǝ and =ɑcʼǝ are related, although the total denasalization in =ɑcʼǝ is not clear, because there are no regular denasalization after g (cf., e.g., gɑ̃žu 'animal fang') or after t (cf., e.g., tɑ̃he 'water tube at the mill'), whereas the sequence r-Ṽ should yield nV as follows from the class prefix n= < r= [van den Berg 1995: 31].
Initial g(V)= in the verbs for 'to look' is a fossilized directional prefix. It is likely that gV=class=acʼV 'to look' and g=VcʼVq 'to look' are related, but final -q in the latter verb remains unclear.
The model: absolutive (object) + lative (recipient).
Proto-Tsezic:*class=eg1ʷa A
NCED: 255. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning 'to be seen, to see' in all Tsezic lects except for Hunzib, where it was lost.
The original meaning of the verb *class=ãcʼV [NCED: 262], which means 'to be seen, to see' in Hunzib, is unclear. It is not very likely that it is the same root as 'to look', attested in East West Tsezic (further see notes on Hunzib).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the first vowel a in Khwarshi (apparently an occasional assimilation: e-a > a-a). As proposed by S. Nikolaev, indexed *d1 & *g1 are specific Proto-Tsezic phonemes, which yield voiced reflexes in East Tsezic and voiceless ones in West Tsezic [NCED: 111].
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal stem, meaning 'to be seen'. The model absolutive (object) + dative (recipient), attested in the majority of modern lects, is to be reconstructed as the Proto-Tsezic pattern for 'to see'.
The paronymous verb is class=ĩze {йинзал} 'to sow' [Khalilov 1995: 124].
Distinct from hakʼ, which is glossed as 'seeds' in [Khalilov 1995: 72] with the only example: "seeds of flower". The exact meaning of Bezhta proper hakʼ is unclear, but obviously it is not the basic term for 'seed' (in Tlyadal Bezhta and Hunzib, this word means 'flower').
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 39, 518. Polysemy: 'seed / stone of fruit'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111], the Hinukh word for 'seed (семя)' is erroneously quoted as haqʼu {гьакъу}, which actually means 'family (семья)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 135].
Cf. the verb eziː 'to sieve' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 405; Forker 2013: 189]. Since it does not attach class prefixes, whereas the etymologically expected Hinukh form should be with -ž-, not -z-, it is likely that eziː represents a borrowing from Bezhta with the Hinukh vowel shifts.
Khalilov 1999: 28, 374. Polysemy: 'seed / stone of fruit'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111], the Kidero word for 'seed' is quoted as ʡeži, not found in [Khalilov 1999]; the initial pharyngeal looks strange.
Common Khwarshi ƛʼetʼu 'seed' is borrowed Tindi ƛʼetʼu 'seed'.
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔĩž-u ~ *ʔĩžː-u A
NCED: 279. Distribution: A non-trivial case. In the majority of the lects, the noun *ʔĩž-u 'seed' is used, derived from the verb *class=ĩžV (~ -žː-) 'to sow' (the verb itself is well-attested in Tsezic languages). Deverbatives with the suffix -u are not a productive pattern, although these are more or less scarcely attested in various Tsezic lects and such a morphological model can be reconstructed for the Proto-Tsezic level.
In Hinukh and many, although not all, Dido dialects, the meaning 'seed / stone of fruit' is expressed by the form *ħakʼʷ [NCED: 508]. Its East Tsezic cognates are: Hunzib proper hakʼ 'flower' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 61], Tlyadal Bezhta hakʼ 'flower', Bezhta proper hakʼ 'seeds' [Khalilov 1995: 72] (further connection to Khwarshi akʼ 'dough' is semantically unlikely). It is theoretically possible that *ħakʼʷ is the Proto-Tsezic term for 'seed', retained in Hinukh and Dido, but superseded by independent new formations from 'to sow' in other lects (including Mokok Dido). However, since *ʔĩž-u demonstrates a non-productive morphological pattern and should be treated as an archaic stem, it is more likely that *ħakʼʷ with the meaning 'seed' represents a late innovation of the central Tsezic area. The original Proto-Tsezic semantics of *ħakʼʷ is unclear.
In Khwarshi dialects, the inherited forms tend to be superseded by the Tindi loanword.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the final -i instead of -u in Dido.
Semantics and structure: Nominal deverbative stem.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 37, 98, 232; van den Berg 1995: 68, 295. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Literally 'to be down' with qʼere 'down' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 98; van den Berg 1995: 68] and the generic verb class=eče {беча} 'to be / to stand / to stay' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 37; van den Berg 1995: 295].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Quoted in the entry 'to sit down', but apparently with polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'.
Common Bezhta notes:
Literally 'to stay/stand down' with the local adverb qʼere (Bezhta proper regular qʼey) 'down to the ground, on the floor' and class=eče 'to stand' q.v.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 91, 519. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Literally 'to be down' with the adverb qʼidi ~ qʼüdü 'down, on the ground / afoot' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 216; Forker 2013: 347] and the generic verb class=iči 'to be / to stand / to stay' (see 'to stand').
Karimova 2014. Cf. the attested example: "I am sitting near the spring water" [Bokarev 1959: 158].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: qʼudu class=eč {къуду эча} with polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down' [Karimova 2014]. Cf. the attested examples: "He ... poured out the flour into the barrel and sat down" [Khalilova 2009: 87], "When (they) came to the waste land, (they) sat down under the pear tree" [Khalilova 2009: 124].
Common Khwarshi notes:
In all the dialects, the basic expression for 'to sit' is the local adverb qʼudu 'down' [Khalilova 2009: 124] plus the inflected copula class=eč 'to be'. Cf. the similar construction for 'to stand'.
Proto-Tsezic:*qʼˤe- class=ečV
NCED: 616, 1025. Distribution: In all the lects, except for Kidero Dido, 'to sit' is expressed analytically as the adverb *qʼˤe- 'down' [NCED: 616] (modified with different suffixes, which possibly represent old spatial case endings: *-re in East Tsezic and *-dV in West Tsezic) plus the verb *class=ečV 'to be / to stand' [NCED: 1025].
In Kidero Dido, the adverb *qʼˤe-dV was lost and *class=ečV acquired the polysemy 'to stand / to sit'.
Replacements: {'to be down' > 'to sit'} (Proto-Tsezic).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 38; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41; van den Berg 1995: 287; Bokarev 1961: 151. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of large cattle'. The meaning 'human skin' is offered only in [van den Berg 1995].
Ya. Testelets, p.c.; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of large cattle' (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], only the latter meaning is mentioned).
Distinct from: ʁäše 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40]; lepa {лепа} 'skin' or 'hide' (not specified) [Khalilov 1995: 178, 311].
Ya. Testelets, p.c.; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of large cattle' (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], only the latter meaning is mentioned).
Distinct from: ʁäše 'hide of sheep', qäƛö 'hide of goat' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40].
Hinukh:qal {хъал}-1
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 358, 454. Polysemy: 'bark / peel / layer, coat / skin'. The only attested example for the meaning 'human skin' contains this word: “skin (qal) of the hands has chapped” [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 358]. Borrowed from Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.
Distinct from several inherited terms:
1) χʷiši ~ χuši {хвиши, хуши} 'hide of small cattle' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 349; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40];
2) bik {бик} 'hide of large cattle' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 81; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40];
3) qˤoƛu ~ qʼoƛu 'sheep hide' [Forker 2013: 32, 117; Lomtadze 1963: 41] (the etymologically expected variant qˤoƛu is from [Lomtadze 1963]), not found in other sources.
Kidero Dido:
No expressions for 'human skin' have been found in the available sources. Apparently one of following words must be used for this meaning:
1) ħoši {хIоши, хIоIши} 'hide of small cattle' (including 'sheep hide') [Khalilov 1999: 268; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40];
2) bik {бик} 'hide of large cattle' [Khalilov 1999: 56; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40];
3) borrowed term qal {хъал} 'bark / peel / layer, coat / skin' [Khalilov 1999: 251], as in the examples "The skin got thin" [Khalilov 1999: 112], "to strip the skin off" [Khalilov 1999: 251]; < Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.
In all the dialects, 'human skin' can also be expressed as qal {хъал} [Karimova 2014], ultimately borrowed from Avar qːal 'peel, bark'.
Proto-Tsezic:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: Various terms for 'human skin' normally display the polysemy 'human skin / a k. of animal hide' in attested Tsezic 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 (e.g., *bešː 'hide of large cattle / human skin' can be formally reconstructed for Proto-East Tsezic).
Replacements: {'animal hide' > 'human skin'} (passim in Tsezic).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 46; van den Berg 1995: 338. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'.
Pace [Bokarev 1961: 162; NCED: 620], the Hunzib verb class=ɨ̃ƛ(V) 'to sleep' apparently does not exists. Bokarev’s form mɨƛa looks like a corruption of the adverb mɨƛa-ɬ 'in one's sleep' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 128] < mɑɬu [dir.] / mɨɬa- [obl.] with the locative exponent -ɬ [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 120].
Bezhta (proper):class=üčäːχe {йуьча̄ьхаьл}2
Khalilov 1995: 137, 338; Madieva 1965: 188. Glossed as 'to sleep, to fall asleep'.
Also, as noted by M. Khalilov (p.c.), the verb class=utʼ 'to lie / to lie down' q.v. can be sporadically used for 'to sleep' (thus polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 169. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'.
Distinct from class=üčäχe 'to fall asleep', ɬüʔƛe 'to fall asleep', χöčä-läh 'to doze' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 169].
Common Bezhta notes:
Morphological structure of class=üčäχe, ɬüʔƛe, χöčä-läh is not entirely clear. =üčäχe looks like an old complex verb (*=üčV-äχe), but details are unknown (in Bezhta proper =üčäːχe, long äː can be due to contraction with the iterative infix -a-). χöčä-läh is formed with the iterative suffix -läh [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 273], but χöčä itself is not a very typical root shape for Tsezic. Finally, Tlyadal ɬüʔ-ƛe 'to fall asleep' / Bezhta proper ɬüʔ-ƛö 'to wake up' [Khalilov 1995: 184] is formally a complex verb, where -ƛV is the morpheme expressing the semantics of “sound” or “mouth” [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 273], although ɬüʔ as an onomatopoeic element looks strange (under such an analysis, one should expect an ergative model for ɬüʔ-ƛe).
Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 115, 116; Bokarev 1959: 165, 169. Cf. the examples: "When the son is sleeping, there is no noise" [Bokarev 1959: 173], "Household sleeps abed, cattle sleeps outside" [Bokarev 1959: 174].
A second verb for 'to sleep' is class=aq {аIхъаI, ахъа} with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep' as follows from the example "I will sleep" in [Bokarev 1959: 168].
The second Inkhokwari verb for 'to sleep' is class=aqˤ ~ class=aq {аIхъаI, ахъа} with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep' as follows from the gloss 'to sleep' in [Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 166, 168, 169, 170, 171].
Distinct from inherited class=üwe-r-o {йуьверо} 'younger' [Khalilov 1995: 137], past participle from the verb class=üwö 'to lose, to sustain a defeat' [Khalilov 1995: 137], although the retention of r (instead of expected y) is unclear.
Khoshar-Khota Bezhta:itʼin-o-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237. Borrowed from Avar hitʼina-class 'small'.
Differently in [Khalilova 2009: 106, 415, 445], where only the Kwantlada form ikʼsew with polysemy: 'small / younger' has been found. Cf. the best example: "Though the garden on the hen's neck was small, I went there to plough and sow" [Khalilova 2009: 415].
Common Khwarshi notes:
All three attested forms, akʼey, micʼikʼ-i and ikʼsew, are etymologically obscure. E.g., micʼikʼ- directly coincides with Nidzh Udi micːikː {мицIикI} 'small', although the hypothetical common source of the borrowing is unclear.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=iʁʷˤV ~ *class=iʁːʷˤV
NCED: 573. Distribution: For East Tsezic, *class=ihV-r [NCED: 256] can be reconstructed as the term for 'small'; it is a participle from a verb that is attested only in Bezhta with the meaning 'to lose, to sustain a defeat'; the root is apparently lost in West Tsezic (Hinukh ehe-nnu, quoted in [NCED: 257], does not exist).
In West Tsezic, several different terms are used, all of them with weak etymologies or even without any whatsoever. If Khwarshi proper iʁa(y) 'small' does indeed exist, its match with Dido class=eʁˤe 'small' makes *class=iʁ(ː)ʷˤV [NCED: 573] the best candidate for Proto-West Tsezic 'small'.
Provisionally we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with *class=iʁ(ː)ʷˤV (attested in West Tsezic), since the morphologically transparent participle *class=ihV-r (attested in East Tsezic) has a better chance to be a secondary formation.
In Bezhta dialects, the inherited term was superseded by the Avar loanword.
Khalilov 1995: 263, 305; Madieva 1965: 190. Paradigm: qo [abs.] / qoy- [obl.]. Cf. the discovered examples for qo 'smoke': “The house is full of smoke” [Khalilov 1995: 58], “to fill the room with smoke” [Khalilov 1995: 130], “Smoke has made the room grey” [Khalilov 1995: 179], “to smother with smoke” [Khalilov 1995: 188], “smoke from fire”, “smoky room”, “to emit smoke”, “Smoke is raised in the room”, “The stove produces smoke” [Khalilov 1995: 263].
A second candidate is gotʼ {готI} with polysemy: 'dust / smoke' [Khalilov 1995: 63; Madieva 1965: 154]. This one seems more marginal in the meaning 'smoke' than qo, because, first of all, examples for gotʼ 'smoke' are less numerous, second, they are not observed outside the main entry gotʼ in [Khalilov 1995: 63] (“a lot of smoke”, “The smoke has cleared”, “to emit smoke”, “The house is full of smoke”).
Distinct from the more specific term: Khoshar-Khota, Tlyadal mus 'smoke with soot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207] and Bezhta proper mus {мус}, which is glossed as 'smoke above the fire' in [Madieva 1965: 177], but simply as 'soot' in [Khalilov 1995: 200].
Khalilov 1999: 87, 322; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207. According to [Khalilov 1999: 87], with polysemy: 'smoke / dust'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205, 207], glossed with polysemy 'smoke / fog' that is not confirmed in [Khalilov 1999]. Additionally, the compound gutʼ-muši 'smoke', literally 'dust + air' is used [Khalilov 1999: 87].
NCED: 738. Distribution: A non-trivial case with two terms entering into competition:
1) *qʷɨ ~ *qo [NCED: 738], which represents the main term for 'smoke' in East Tsezic lects, lost in West Tsezic;
2) *gotʼ(V) A [TsezEDb], which means 'smoke' in West Tsezic (with polysemy 'smoke / dust' in Kidero Dido), as well as in one East Tsezic lect: Bezhta proper with polysemy 'smoke / dust', although it is not the main Bezhta term for 'smoke'. In Hunzib, it means simply 'dust'.
Despite its narrower distribution, the root *qʷɨ ~ *qo has very good external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'smoke', which is why we prefer to posit it as the Proto-Tsezic term for this meaning.
On the other hand, *gotʼ(V) lacks an external North Caucasian etymology. Its meaning 'dust', attested in both East and West Tsezic, suggests that *gotʼ(V) can be reconstructed as the Proto-Tsezic term for 'dust', whereas the development 'dust' > 'smoke' is a late innovation, probably not even of Proto-West Tsezic age, since in Kidero Dido the compound 'dust (gutʼ) + air' is still used as a more rare expression for 'smoke'. It must be noted that Bezhta proper gotʼ 'dust / smoke' cannot be a direct Hinukh loanword, because in Hinukh this root has the shape kutʼi (with irregular k- instead of g-).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 37, 236. Polysemy: 'to be / to stand / to stay'. In [van den Berg 1995: 295], class=eče is only glossed as 'to stay, be, live', there is no expression for 'to stand' in this glossary. The expression for 'to sit' q.v. consists of class=eče with a spatial adverb.
Distinct from class=arče {барча} 'to stand up' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 31, 194; van den Berg 1995: 282]. This can additionally be modified by the adverb ƛʼoqʼ 'up' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 102; van den Berg 1995: 68] (ƛʼoqʼ is not attested outside this expression).
Khalilov 1995: 116, 339. The collocation consists of the adverb class=eco-ƛʼa 'upright' [Khalilov 1995: 116] (-ƛʼa is the locative ending, which frequently modifies locative or spatial adverbs) and the verb class=eče {йецал} 'to stop to move / to stop to do / to take one's stand / to stay, dwell' [Khalilov 1995: 116; Madieva 1965: 160]. Apparently, =eco-ƛʼa and =eče are etymological cognates (c < č due to word harmony).
Cf. the related verb class=eče-nVcʼ {йеченицIал} 'to stop to move / to stop to do' [Khalilov 1995: 116]: ...-nocʼ [class 1] / ...-nicʼ [2] / ...-nucʼ [3, 4].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86. Polysemy: 'to stand / to remain, stay'. According to M. Khalilov, p.c., there also exists the full collocation class=eco-ƛʼa class=eče 'to stand', which corresponds to the Bezhta proper expression.
Distinct from class=eče-nocʼ 'to stop to move' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86]; only the class 1 form eče-nocʼ is documented.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86. Only the class 1 form eče-nocʼ is documented. Apparently, with polysemy: 'to stop to move / to stand'. According to M. Khalilov, p.c., there also exists the collocation class=öčö-ƛʼa class=eče 'to stand', which corresponds to the Bezhta proper expression.
class=eče can be safely postulated as the Proto-Bezhta verb for 'to stand'. The semantic development towards abstract meanings in Bezhta dialects has conditioned the use of an additional adverb.
The element -nVcʼ is unclear. It looks like a verbal root =ocʼ '?' that has been modified with the fossilized directional prefix n=.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 90, 528. Polysemy: 'to be, become / to stand / to stand up / to stay / to stop to move / to stop to do'. The expression for 'to sit' q.v. consists of class=iči with a spatial adverb.
Khalilov 1999: 63. A generic verb with polysemy: 'to stand / to sit / to sit down / to stay, remain, dwell / to stop to do'. Additionally, the full collocation hečkerclass=iči {гьечкер ича} 'to stand' is used [Khalilov 1999: 97, 381], which contains the spatial adverb hečker ~ ečker (Asakh hečʼkʼer) {гьечкер, эчкер} 'vertically' [Khalilov 1999: 97].
Distinct from specific class=izi {биза} 'to stand up / to raise' [Khalilov 1999: 54].
Sagada Dido:ečkʼer class=iči {эчкIер бича}3
Abdulaev 2014. Literally 'to be vertically' with the adverb ečkʼer 'vertically' and the generic verb class=iči 'to be'.
Karimova 2014. Apparently, the situation is the same as in Kwantlada Khwarshi (q.v.): the basic expression for 'to stand' is the infinitive class=ah-a plus the inflected copula class=eč 'to be'.
Karimova 2014. Apparently, the situation is the same as in Kwantlada Khwarshi (q.v.): the basic expression for 'to stand' is the infinitive class=ah-a plus the inflected copula class=eč 'to be'.
Simple class=ah means 'to stand up' [Bokarev 1959: 163, 165] (accordiing to Bokarev, this verb has the suppletive present stem ay-).
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=ah-a class=eč {агьа эча} with polysemy: 'to stand / stop' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 17]. This is the basic expression for 'to stand': the infinitive class=ah-a plus the inflected copula class=eč 'to be'. Cf. some examples: "The girl was standing (=ah-a) in the center of the street" [Khalilova 2009: 139], "People who are working are standing (=ah-a)" [Khalilova 2009: 213], "At night I had a dream that I and Musa, Saydula and their Xadi, who was standing (=ah-an), were trying to pen (drive in) the buffalo calves" [Khalilova 2009: 225], "You have reached that place, stop!" [Khalilova 2009: 231].
Without the copula =eč, the fully inflected class=ah can be used in the meaning 'to stand up' as in "Malla-rasan got up (=ah-un) from the place where he was" [Khalilova 2009: 229], "The clever one got up (=ah-un) early in the morning hiding himself behind the door" [Khalilova 2009: 134]; in the meaning 'to become' as in "I became glad", "He became glad" [Khalilova 2009: 223]; or in the meaning 'to be, be situated" as in "He became ill there and was (=ah-) in bed for six months" [Khalilova 2009: 72].
Common Khwarshi notes:
Cf. a similar construction for 'to sit'.
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ečV
NCED: 1025. Distribution: *class=ečV is a Common Tsezic verb for 'to be'. The plain verb is also used as the basic expression for 'to stand' in East Tsezic and some West Tsezic languages (Hinukh, Dido) that allow us to reconstruct *class=ečV with the Proto-Tsezic polysemy 'to be / to stand'.
Sometimes, especially in Bezhta and Khwarshi, *class=ečV with the meaning 'to stand' is modified by various adverbial additions, which are not entirely clear synchronically and do not coincide between languages diachronically (the underlying meaning of these should be something like 'vertically'). Such constructions ('to be vertically') mirror the Common Tsezic construction *qʼˤe- class=ečV 'to sit' q.v., lit. 'to be down'.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 374, 445; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198. Oblique stem: ca- ~ ca-mo-. The variant cʷa, proposed in [NCED: 1099], is not confirmed by other sources. In [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 379], the phonetic variant cʼa {цIа} 'star' is also quoted, apparently the result of influence on the part of Avar cʼʷːa 'star'.
Khalilov 1999: 269, 327; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198. Oblique stem: caye- ~ ca-dara-. In [Khalilov 1999: 274], the phonetic variant cʼa {цIа}, obl. cʼa- 'star' is also quoted; this is apparently the result of influence on the part of Avar cʼʷːa 'star'.
Distinct from the borrowed term gamačʼ {гамачI}, glossed as generic 'stone' in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 115], but specified as 'big stone' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201] (< Avar gamˈačʼ 'stone').
Distinct from himu {гьиму} 'gravestone' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 144] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191], the word for 'gravestone' is quoted as χemu - an error?).
NCED: 467. Distribution: An unstable word with three competing roots:
1) *ƛʼVlu [NCED: 773], which can be reconstructed as the Proto-East Tsezic term for 'stone'; in West Tsezic it means 'stone throwing' (Hinukh) and 'trap' (Dido, Khwarshi).
2) *χemu A [NCED: 466], meaning 'stone' in Hinukh; in the rest of Tsezic lects it means 'gravestone' or 'boundary stone' (although details of the coexistence of two Hinukh variants: χemu 'stone', himu 'gravestone', are unclear);
3) *ʁːur (~ ʁ-, -o-, -l) [NCED: 467], which means 'stone' in Dido and Khwarshi, lost in the rest of languages.
Distribution-wise, *ƛʼVlu is the best variant, since its Hinukh meaning 'stone throwing' could point to the generic meaning 'stone' in Proto-West Tsezic. On the other hand, this root means 'trap' in Dido and Khwarshi, which implies the original meaning 'flat stone, stone lid' vel sim. Such a meaning is in accordance with Avaro-Andian (closest relative of Tsezic) data, which also show the meaning 'lip' for the cognates of Tsezic *ƛʼVlu. So it is likely that Tsezic *ƛʼVlu originally meant 'flat stone, stone lid', having developed into the generic meaning 'stone' in Proto-East Tsezic; Hinukh ƛʼal 'stone throwing' is thus either borrowed or seriously influenced by East Tsezic.
The original meaning of *χemu was apparently 'gravestone', as proven by the majority of languages; its meaning 'stone' in Hinukh is thus secondary.
Ultimately, the noun *ʁːur, retained only in Dido and Khwarshi, appears to be the best candidate for the status of Proto-Tsezic 'stone'. External etymology supports this solution: Nakh cognates of *ʁːur can be safely posited as the basic Proto-Nakh term for 'stone'.
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 197; Bokarev 1959: 148, 152. The variant bɨq is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990; Bokarev 1959]. Paradigm: bɨq [abs.] / bɨqɨ- [obl.].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: buq ~ buqˤ ~ bɨqˤ {бухъ} 'sun' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 16, 130]. The unexpected pharyngealized variants buqˤ ~ bɨqˤ are from [Khalilova 2009].
Proto-Tsezic:*boq
NCED: 1051. 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 Inkhokwari Khwarshi vowel, influenced by the oblique stem.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *bɨqV-.
Number:83
Word:swim
Hunzib (proper):
Not reliably documented in the available sources and probably missing from the language (at least, as a separate lexical root). Cf. the collocation ẽχu y=ɑhu 'to swim across the river' with ẽχu 'river' and the verb class=ɑhu 'to cross' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 33, 184]. In [van den Berg 1995: 296], ẽχu y=ɑhu and ẽχu y=iƛʼe (literally 'to kill the river'?) are simply glossed as 'to swim', which looks like an inaccuracy.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 245, 490. Apparently the most neutral expressions for 'to swim' are ɬe r=iʁ and iχu y=iʁ, literally 'to take out/off the water' and 'to take out/off the river' with class=iʁ 'to take out' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 79], ɬe 'water' q.v. and iχu 'river' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 185].
Another expression for 'to swim' is pelu b=ikʼ {пелу бикIа} [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 292, 490] with b=ikʼ 'to hit' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 84] and pelu of unclear origin.
Khalilov 1999: 66, 174, 357. Literally 'to take out/off the water' with class=oʁ 'to take out' [Khalilov 1999: 66] and ɬi 'water' q.v.
A second candidate is esa-na {эсанада} with polysemy: 'to wash (oneself) / to wash, launder / to bathe / to swim' [Khalilov 1999: 298]; -na is the iterative suffix.
Literally 'to do kʷani' with auxiliary class=uw ~ class=iy. Borrowed from Tindi kʷani-ihi- 'to swim', literally 'to do kʷani'.
Proto-Tsezic:*ɬːɨ̃ r=ɔʁːV
NCED: 1060. Distribution: Barely reconstructible. For the most part, only analytic expressions for 'to swim' are attested in Tsezic languages; the main element that carries the lexical meaning is 'water', 'river' or the borrowed stem 'swimming'. A formal match between Bezhta, Hinukh and Dido allows us to posit *ɬːɨ̃ r=ɔʁːV 'to take out/off the water' as the Proto-Tsezic expression for 'to swim'.
The coincidence between Bezhta proper ẽχe y=aʁo 'to swim' (literally 'to take out/off the river') and Hinukh iχu y=iʁ 'to swim' (literally 'to take out/off the river') is therefore secondary.
Replacements: {'to take out/off the water' > 'to swim'} (Bezhta proper, Hinukh, Kidero Dido); {'to take out/off the river' > 'to swim'} (Bezhta proper, Hinukh); {'to bathe' > 'to swim'} (Sagada Dido).
Khalilov 1995: 293. Literally 'to take out/off the river', where ẽχe = 'river'. This is a second equivalent for the meaning 'to swim' found in [Khalilov 1995]. In [Madieva 1965: 195], another auxiliary verb is used: ẽχe y=aƛʼel, literally 'to hit the river'.
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 25; Bokarev 1959: 149. The variant mĩhe is from [Karimova 2014].
Distinct from the Inkhokwari compound kʼicʼ-mihe 'fatty tail of sheep (курдюк)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 25] (the first element kʼicʼ is not attested independently).
Kwantlada Khwarshi: mihẽ ~ mĩhe {мингье} 'tail' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 15]. In [Khalilova 2009: 27], an unclear form kʼužu 'tail' is also quoted.
Proto-Tsezic:*miχ ~ *miχe A
NCED: 801. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
Replacements: {'tail' > 'handle, grip'} (passim in Tsezic).
Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 159; van den Berg 1995: 60; Bokarev 1959: 43. Suppletive paradigm: ǝ-g [abs. class 1, 3, 5] / o-gu [abs. 2, 4] / o-ɬu [obl.].
According to [van den Berg 1995: 60], the Hunzib system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: bǝ-d, bo-du 'this (near the speaker)' / bǝ-l, bo-lu 'this (near the addressee)' / ǝ-g, o-gu 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. However, as noted in [van den Berg 1995: 60], the medial member bǝ-l [class 1, 3, 5], bo-lu [2, 4] is “used considerably less than the other two”, whereas in [Bokarev 1959: 43], bǝ-l, bo-lu is not quoted at all. Because of this, we regard the synchronic Hunzib system to be binary: bǝ-d, bo-du 'this' / ǝ-g, o-gu 'that'.
According to [Khalilov 1995: 399-400], the Bezhta proper system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: hu-di 'this (near the speaker)' / hu-li 'this (near the addressee)' / hu-gi 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'.
The parallel emphatic set is modified with the proclitic wa= and irregular vowel reduction: wa=h-di / wa=h-li / wa=h-gi.
It should be noted that hu-li 'this (near the addressee)' is not mentioned in [Madieva 1965: 100-103] at all. This should imply that hu-li is rarely used in the language, and, actually, the Bezhta proper system is binary: hu-di 'this' / hu-gi 'that'. Nevertheless M. Khalilov (p.c.) has informed me that in the modern language, hu-li is a full-fledged and normally used pronoun. Technically, we treat hu-di 'this (near the speaker)' and hu-li 'this (near the addressee)' as synonyms for the slot 'this'.
M. Khalilov, p.c. Khalilov (p.c.) preliminarily reports the binary opposition: hu-di 'this' / hu-gi 'that', although actually the whole system is expected to be ternary.
According to [Kibrik & Testelets 2004: 247], the Tlyadal system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: hu-di- 'this (near the speaker)' / hu-ni- 'this (near the addressee)' / hu-gi- 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'.
The parallel emphatic set is modified with the proclitic wa= and irregular vowel harmony: wa=ha-di- / wa=ha-ni- / wa=ha-gi-.
In [Bokarev 1959: 95], a similar picture is reported, although the author fails to describe the difference between hu-di- and hu-ni- (these function as close synonyms, according to Bokarev).
Technically, we treat hu-di- 'this (near the speaker)' and hu-ni- 'this (near the addressee)' as synonyms for the slot 'this'. It is possible, however, that hu-ni- 'this (near the addressee)' is actually a marginal pronoun and this word should be excluded from the list.
As described in [Forker 2013: 132 ff.], the system of Hinukh demonstrative pronouns is very complex, despite the fact that the basic opposition is binary: =do 'this' / =go 'that'. Three binary series are distinguished in [Forker 2013], which mainly differ by prefixal elements. Out of them, iza=(ha)=do 'this' / iza=(ha)=go 'that' seems to satisfy the Swadesh list semantics, “[t]hese pronouns solely occur when directly pointing at some person or object, i.e. they serve only deictic functions” [Forker 2013: 139].
Two other series are: ha=do 'this' / ha=go 'that', which are “predominantly used as third person personal pronouns, as anaphoric pronouns, and as definite articles in noun phrases” [Forker 2013: 134]; and hi=ba=(ha)=do 'this' / hi=ba=(ha)=go 'that', which “occur only when the reference is immediately given” [Forker 2013: 136 f.]. All three series possess suppletive paradigms in respect to case and class.
Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004: 130. Suppletive paradigm: že [abs.] / ne-si [obl. class 1] / ne-ɬ [obl. class 2-4] / že-di [pl.].
The system of Kidero Dido demonstrative pronouns has not yet been properly described, but, according to [Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004: 129 f.], the basic opposition is binary: =da 'this' / že 'that'. Three paradigms of 'this' are distinguished in [Alekseev & Radzhabov 2004], which mainly differ by means of prefixal elements, and two paradigms of 'that'. Out of those, ey=da 'this' / že 'that' seem to suit the Swadesh list semantics; cf. Alekseev & Radzhabov's remark that ey=da is usually accompanied with a deictic gesture.
Other demonstratives are: ye=da 'this', how=da 'this', how=že 'that'. All paradigms are suppletive in respect to case and sometimes to class.
Differently in the previous studies: [Khalilov 1999: 439; Imnaishvili 1963: 101 ff.; Bokarev 1959: 198 f.], where three degrees of proximity are postulated.
Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 108. As shown in [Karimova 2014], the basic opposition is binary: a=class=(e)=du 'this' / o=class=(e)=žu 'that'.
Besides these, there are two additional pairs of demonstrative pronouns mentioned in [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 108]: i-du 'this' / žu 'that'; ho-bo-du 'this' / ho-bo-žu 'that'.
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 160. As shown in [Karimova 2014], the basic opposition is binary: a=class=(e)=du 'this' / o=class=(e)=nu 'that'.
A second demonstrative pair is i-du 'this' / yu 'that' [Bokarev 1959: 160]. See notes on the similar, if not completely identical, Kwantlada Khwarshi system, which is described in more detail.
It is not easy to properly understand the Kwantlada system based on [Khalilova 2009: 143-150], but in all likelihood, the basic opposition is binary: a=class=(e)=du 'this' / o=class=(e)=nu 'that' [Khalilova 2009: 147 ff.], both have suppletive oblique stems. The data in [Karimova 2014] suggest the same.
Besides these, there are also two other pairs of demonstrative pronouns. The first one is i-du 'this' / i-nu 'that' [Karimova 2014: 143, 146 f.]. The second pair is ho-bo-du 'this' / ho-mo-nu (assimilated < *ho-bo-nu) 'that' [Karimova 2014: 143, 149 f.].
Additionally, there are specific pronouns, whose function is probably anaphoric: žu 'that (sg.)', i-z(ː)u 'that (proximal, pl.)', ži-du 'that (distal, pl.)' [Karimova 2014: 143-146].
The aforementioned pairs suggest that in the absolutive case =du is the main exponent of the proximal deixis 'this', whereas =nu is the main exponent of the distal deixis 'that'. Nevertheless, in the oblique cases these suppletive pronouns are only discriminated by the initial vowel morphemes, e.g., ergative class 1: a=class=(e)=se 'this' / o=class=(e)=se 'that'. Because of this, we treat a=class=(e)=du 'this' and o=class=(e)=nu 'that' as compounds from a lexicostatistical point of view.
Proto-Tsezic:*hV=gV
NCED: 442, 486. Distribution: In East Tsezic (Hinukh, Bezhta), the system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: 'this (near the speaker)' / 'this (near the addressee)' / 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. For West Tsezic, the binary system is characteristic: 'this' / 'that'. It remains unclear what kind of system is to be reconstructed for Proto-Tsezic: ternary or binary.
The Proto-Tsezic proximal deictic pronoun 'this' or 'this (near the speaker)' can be safely reconstructed as *hV-dV [NCED: 404, 486]. This compound is retained everywhere except for Hunzib (where the first element was replaced by *bV [NCED: 321]) and perhaps Kidero Dido (where the first element was either replaced or contracted).
The distal deictic pronoun 'that' or 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)' is less stable. The compound *hV-gV [NCED: 442] can be posited as the Proto-East Tsezic distal deictic pronoun. With the same function, *hV-gV is also attested in Hinukh, which formally allows us to reconstruct *hV-gV as the Proto-Tsezic pronoun with this basic meaning.
In the rest of the West Tsezic lects, different distal deictic pronouns are used. In Dido and Khwarshi proper, it is *žV [NCED: 1087] or the compound *hV-žV. In Kwantlada Khwarshi, *hV-žV was superseded by *hV-nV [NCED: 858].
Despite the fact that Hinukh *hV-gV can theoretically be a result of East Tsezic influence, we prefer to follow formal distribution and reconstruct the Proto-Tsezic distal deictic pronoun 'that' or 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)' as the compound *hV-gV.
In conclusion, we propose the following principal opposition for Proto-Tsezic: *hV-dV 'this' or 'this (near the speaker)' / *hV-gV 'that' or 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. The second elements *-dV and *-gV have to be treated as meaningful morphemes, whereas *hV- was apparently an auxiliary unit.
Reconstruction shape: Vocalic correspondences are irregular; loss of initial *h in Hunzib and Khwarshi is irregular.
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morphemes.
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Bokarev 1959: 159. Paradigm: mo [abs.] / me [erg.] / du-b- [obl.].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: mo [abs.] / me [erg.] / du-b- [obl.] 'thou' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 142].
Proto-Tsezic:*mǝ
NCED: 1014. Distribution: The Proto-Tsezic suppletive paradigm can be safely reconstructed as *mǝ [abs., erg.] / *dɨ-bǝ A [gen.] / *du- [obl.]. It is retained in East Tsezic, although perhaps already in Proto-West Tsezic, the oblique stem acquired the shape *dɨ-b- by analogy with the genitive form.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for i in Bezhta in mi.
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morphemes.
Distinct from χɑʁin {ха̇гъин} 'molar' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 162, 202; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17; van den Berg 1995: 340; Bokarev 1961: 167, 175].
Distinct from kʼɑ̃cu ~ kʼɑcu {кIа̇нцу} 'canine tooth' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 105; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 16; van den Berg 1995: 312] (the form kʼɑ̃cu is from [Isakov & Khalilov 2001], where it is glossed as 'human canine tooth / animal fang').
Distinct from gɑ̃žu {га̇нжу} 'animal fang' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 16; van den Berg 1995: 297]. In light of the Dido cognate with a different meaning, gɑ̃žu looks like an inherited term (thus [NCED: 435]), not borrowed from Avar gožo 'fang'.
Distinct from qɑʁin {хъа̇гъин} 'animal fang' [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 167] - not found in other sources; the form suspiciously resembles χɑʁin {ха̇гъин}, discussed above.
Distinct from the specific term gaži {гажи} (Asakh gižu ~ gʷaži, Mokok gožu) 'fang' [Khalilov 1999: 80] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17], this word is quoted as gažu 'molar').
NCED: 326. Distribution: Two terms enter into competition:
1) *sɨl (~ sː-)A [NCED: 326], meaning 'tooth' in East Tsezic and some West Tsezic (Khwarshi) lects, lost in the rest of West Tsezic;
2) *kʼǝcu [NCED: 430], meaning 'tooth' in some West Tsezic lects (Hinukh, Dido) and 'canine tooth, fang' in some East Tsezic lects (Hunzib).
Inner Tsezic distribution as well as external etymology speak in favour of *sɨl (it goes back to the main candidate for the status of the Proto-North Caucasian term for 'tooth'). As for *kʼǝcu, external comparison clearly suggests that the meaning 'canine tooth, fang' (as attested in East Tsezic) should be primary for this stem.
The match between Hinukh kʼeču / Dido kʼicu 'tooth' is, however, to be treated as secondary.
Khalilov 1999: 93, 319. As may be seen from the entry in [Khalilov 1999], it is the basic word for 'tree' in Kidero Dido.
A second candidate is ažu {ажу} with polysemy: 'tree / shrub, bush / plant tops (of root crop)' [Khalilov 1999: 26], but this one is apparently more marginal in the meaning 'tree'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 95], however, it is transcribed as ažo and quoted as the basic Kidero term for 'tree'.
Distinct from qaca {хъаца} 'firewood' [Khalilov 1999: 252; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 162], redu {реду} 'firewood' [Khalilov 1999: 214], and from ciq {цихъ} 'forest' [Khalilov 1999: 273; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 95].
NCED: 483. Distribution: Three distributionally equiprobable terms enter into competition:
1) *χːõχːǝ (~ ʁ) [NCED: 887], meaning 'tree' in East Tsezic, lost in West Tsezic;
2) *ʔažʷǝ (~ ħ-, -žːʷ-) [NCED: 549], which means 'tree' or 'tree / shrub' in Hinukh, Dido and Khwarshi proper (but in the two latter varieties it is not the main term for 'tree') and 'shrub' in Inkhokwari Khwarshi; lost in East Tsezic.
3) *ʁːʷǝn [NCED: 483], which represents the basic word for 'tree' in Dido and Khwarshi (in Khwarshi with polysemy 'tree / forest'), meaning 'forest' in East Tsezic.
It is likely that *ʔažʷǝ can be reconstructed with the Proto-West Tsezic meaning 'bush, shrub', since this meaning is attested in all West Tsezic lects that are sufficiently documented (Hinukh, Kidero Dido, Inkhokwari Khwarshi). External Andian comparanda also suggest that 'bush, shrub' can be the original semantics. In modern West Tsezic lects, *ʔažʷǝ tends to acquire the additional meaning 'tree', even becoming the basic term for 'tree' in Hinukh.
If so, *ʁːʷǝn should be posited as the Proto-West Tsezic word for 'tree'. Its meaning 'forest' in East Tsezic and Khwarshi is thus a homoplastic match.
There is insufficient evidence to make a single choice between *χːõχːǝ ('tree' in East Tsezic) and *ʁːʷǝn ('tree' in West Tsezic). Provisionally we fill the Proto-Tsezic slot with *ʁːʷǝn.
Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 152; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 247; van den Berg 1995: 69; Bokarev 1959: 44. Paradigm: qʼanu [abs.] / qʼan [obl.]. The field notes on the Naxada dialect have the variant qʼɑnu (Ya. Testelets, p.c.).
NCED: 924. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic stems, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
Reconstruction shape: Consonant correspondences are regular, although vowels can hardly be reconstructed.
Semantics and structure: Numeral stem. The suffix -nV seems unique, it can be singled out on the basis of the noun *qʼʷˤV-ƛV 'twin(s)', attested in Hinukh and Dido.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away'. Morphophonologically = =ẽƛʼe; for old nasalization cf. the class 3 form m=eƛʼe- < *b=ẽƛʼe-.
There are two verbs for 'to go' quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988]: =eƛʼe and =oqʼo, both with additional polysemy. We treat them as synonyms.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 83, 447; Lomtadze 1963: 26. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away / to fly / to flow'. The archaic labialized variant =üƛʼi is from [Lomtadze 1963].
Khalilov 1999: 57, 328. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away / to fly'. Besides imv. ikʼi, the suppletive imperative form horo {гьоро} 'go!' can be used as well [Khalilov 1999: 100].
Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 95, 114. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away'. Browsing through [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961] suggests that it is the most general and frequently used verb for 'to go'. Cf. the attested examples: "I'm going to the river with my friends" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 103], "The farmers go through the field" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 104], "I go towards the school" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 106], "I have followed (=ĩƛʼa) the cow" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 108], "The schoolboy goes towards the school" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 102], "I go to bring the cow" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117], "The brother has gone away" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 95], "He has gone towards the village" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 106], "Today the shop manager has come to the village Vedeno to bring goods" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 119].
A second candidate is class=ãkʼa {анкIа} 'to go' [Karimova 2014; Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 94, 101]. This one, however, seems less frequent and its meaning is closer to the abstract 'to depart' or 'to arrive'. Cf. the attested examples: "Next year, I'll go to the village Botlikh" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 102], "We will not go to work today" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117], "I was caught in hail, when I went from the village Vedeno" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 104], "He took a hair from each of the three horses, and went home" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 113], "They have gone to the village Zirkhu" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 109], "The clever sons have gone to the forest to chop wood" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 114].
A third candidate is class=iχ {иха} 'to go', which is a marginal verb according to [Karimova 2014], only two textual examples have been found in the available source: "If you want, I'll go with you" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 117], "Get out of the house, the bear is coming (=iχ)!" [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 116].
Karimova 2014; Bokarev 1959: 166. This verb is quoted as a basic one in [Karimova 2014]. Cf. two attested examples: "He has gone to trade two chicken heads for one ram head" [Bokarev 1959: 162], "He has taken it and gone away" [Bokarev 1959: 174].
A second Inkhokwari candidate is class=ẽƛʼ 'to go' [Bokarev 1959: 145, 148, 163, 164, 170], but without textual examples.
There is also a number of additional Inkhokwari verbs of going offered in [Bokarev 1959] (some of them can be the result of typos): class=eqʷ 'to go' [Bokarev 1959: 147, 165], class=eqe 'to go' [Bokarev 1959: 163], class=iχe 'to go' [Bokarev 1959: 163], class=eχe ~ class=ẽχe 'to walk' [Bokarev 1959: 163, 167, 168], class=iχʷ 'to go here' [Bokarev 1959: 166].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=õkʼ {онкIа} 'to go' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 21, 30]. Browsing through [Khalilova 2009] suggests that class=õkʼ is the most common and generic verb for 'to go'. Examples are numerous, cf. some of them: "Having done the rooms she went outside" [Khalilova 2009: 43], "The fox went to the wolf" [Khalilova 2009: 67], "The witch threw him into the pillow and began to go" [Khalilova 2009: 78], "At about eight o'clock you were to go to work as mullah" [Khalilova 2009: 76], "Forty-five men went to the army from our village" [Khalilova 2009: 79], "to go for hunting" [Khalilova 2009: 82], "The neighbor went to the grandmother and grandfather, asking ..." [Khalilova 2009: 82], "... now what will I do, I do not have money to go back to the village and I could not manage with this studying" [Khalilova 2009: 86], "This boy went near the father" [Khalilova 2009: 87], "You let us go through your road" [Khalilova 2009: 90], "I will not allow, if you go further" [Khalilova 2009: 120], "Go straight forward! (i.e. go straight on the line)" [Khalilova 2009: 124], "The wolf asked him, 'Where are you going to?'" [Khalilova 2009: 153].
A second Kwantlada candidate is class=ẽƛʼ 'to go' [Khalilova 2009: 14, 30], but this one is more rarely used and in many instances its meaning differs from generic 'to go'. Cf. some examples: "Hey people, come, there is (=ẽƛʼ) something in my eye, take it out" [Khalilova 2009: 73], "The grains went under the khan's leg" [Khalilova 2009: 77], "The woman and the boy went home" [Khalilova 2009: 119], "Then the son and the father went far away" [Khalilova 2009: 120], "They went down along the road" [Khalilova 2009: 121], "When they went, and the boy stayed behind" [Khalilova 2009: 123], "Breaking apart, the apple fell (=ẽƛʼ) down" [Khalilova 2009: 124], "When (they) came to the waste land, they..." [Khalilova 2009: 124], "When some time passed, boy sent him again..." [Khalilova 2009: 128].
A third Kwantlada candidate is the rare verb class=eχe ~ class=ẽχe [Khalilova 2009: 21], whose meaning could be closer to 'to walk', as can be seen from the only instance: "Go straight! (i.e. not shaking from side to side)" [Khalilova 2009: 124].
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ẽƛʼV
NCED: 1026. Distribution: Retained in the basic meaning 'to go' in all East Tsezic and the majority of the West Tsezic lects, except for Kidero Dido.
In some West Tsezic lects, *class=ẽƛʼV tends to be superseded by *class=ẽkʼV B [NCED: 267]. *class=ẽkʼV became the basic expression for 'to go' in Kidero Dido, Inkhokwari Khwarshi and Kwantlada Khwarshi, although in Inkhokwari Khwarshi and Kwantlada Khwarshi *class=ẽƛʼV is still retained as a less common synonym for 'to go'. It is obvious that such a homoplastic replacement is an independent innovation in the Dido and Khwarshi dialects. The original Proto-Tsezic meaning of *class=ʔẽkʼV B is unknown.
In Khoshar-Khota Bezhta, the verb *class=ãqʼV 'to come' also acquires the generic meaning 'to go'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73. 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-.
Khalilov 1995: 123, 340; Madieva 1965: 163. Applied to both objects and weather.
Distinct from the term for 'hot': class=ekʼe-y-o {йекIейо} [Khalilov 1995: 115, 302; Madieva 1965: 113], applied to both objects and weather; past participle from class=ekʼe 'to burn (intr.)' q.v.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 74, 532; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245. Applied to both objects and weather. Past participle from the verb class=eχ-ƛʼe 'to become warm' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 74]. It should be noted that the suffix -ƛʼe is apparently unique for Hinukh, cf. [Forker 2013: 197]. Despite the obscurity of the morphological pattern, class=eχ-ƛʼe 'to become warm' looks derived from the verb class=eχi 'to boil, cook (intrans.)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 74].
A second, probably less common, candidate is tutu-n-u {тутуну} with polysemy: 'warm / soft' [Karimova 2014] (only as 'soft' in [Sharafutdinova & Levina 1961: 115]).
Karimova 2014; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Bokarev 1959: 158, 159. The variant =ɨχː-u is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990; Bokarev 1959].
A second, probably less common, Inkhokwari candidate is tute-n-u {тутену} with polysemy: 'warm / soft' [Karimova 2014].
Distinct from Inkhokwari bobo-l-u 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
Kwantlada Khwarshi: class=uχː-u {лухху} 'warm' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 20, 301, 353, 408]. Applied to both objects and weather.
A second, probably less common, Kwantlada candidate is tute-n-u {тутену} with polysemy: 'warm / soft' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 265].
Distinct from Kwantlada bobo-l-u 'hot' [Khalilova 2009: 254].
Proto-Tsezic:*class=ɨχː-y- A
NCED: 563. Distribution: Retained in all lects except for Hinukh and Dido. In Hinukh, it was superseded by the synchronic participle from the verb 'to become warm' (which although contains the same root). In Dido, 'warm' is expressed by the old adjective for 'soft', *tõtV- A, which is retained with the meaning 'soft' in some East and West Tsezic lects [NCED: 205].
Semantics and structure: Participle with the y-suffix from the verb 'to warm up', attested as Hunzib class=ɨχ-le 'to warm up (intrans.)', class=ɨχ-kʼǝ 'to warm up (trans.)', Hinukh class=eχi 'to boil, cook (intrans.)'.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 113, 193; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 202; van den Berg 1995: 315; Bokarev 1961: 160, 173. In [van den Berg 1995], the variant ɬǝ̃ is also quoted. Polysemy: 'water / juice'.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. It is not entirely clear how the oblique stem should be reconstructed (cf. the Khwarshi proper and Inkhokwari Khwarshi data).
Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 163; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; van den Berg 1995: 62; Bokarev 1959: 44. Paradigm: šiyo [abs.] / sin(i)- [obl.]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the oblique stem is erroneously quoted as sɑ(y)-; this is actually the oblique stem of 'who' q.v.
In the absolutive case, with polysemy: 'what? / who?'.
Proto-Tsezic:*ši- ~ šːi- A
NCED: 986. Distribution: Retained as the absolutive stem in all Tsezic lects except for Khwarshi. The suffixal modification differs across the languages: the standard adjectival exponent *-y-u in East Tsezic, the bound pronominal morphemes *bV [NCED: 321] or *wV [NCED: 222] in Dido, plain *ši in Hinukh.
In Khwarshi, the absolutive stem *ši- was superseded by the scantily attested interrogative pronominal morpheme *hi- [NCED: 491] + the bound pronominal morphemes *bV [NCED: 321].
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morpheme, used in the absolutive stem of the pronoun 'what?' (apparently with polysemy 'who / what' already in Proto-Tsezic). The oblique and ergative stem is *ɬi-nV- ~ ɬe-nV- [NCED: 1062], retained in all lects except for Hunzib, where the interrogative morpheme *sV- [NCED: 958] is used instead.
NCED: TsezEDb. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects, although lacking external North Caucasian etymology.
Isakov & Khalilov 2012: 163; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 227; van den Berg 1995: 62; Bokarev 1959: 44. Paradigm: sukʼu [abs.] / sɑ(y)- [obl.]; in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the paradigm is listed as regular, with the oblique stem sukʼu-: either this form has been levelled by analogy, or this is an error (looks like the oblique form of the homonymous sukʼu 'man' q.v.).
Khalilov 1995: 233, 400; Madieva 1965: 103. In [Khalilov 1995: 233, 400], the parallel variant suqʼo-(d) {сукъо} is also quoted. Suppletive paradigm: sukʼo-(d) [abs.] / ɬo-, ɬoː- [obl.]. Final -d is the phrasal interrogative exponent.
In the absolutive case, with polysemy: 'what? / who?'.
Proto-Tsezic:*ši- ~ šːi- A
NCED: 986. Distribution: The absolutive stem of this pronoun is unstable in Tsezic. In East Tsezic, a strange form occurs, which synchronically coincides with the noun *zikʼʷǝ A 'man / person' q.v., although the semantic development 'person' > 'who' or vice versa does not seem likely. A somewhat dubious explanation is proposed in [NCED: 958], according to which the Proto-East Tsezic pronoun contains the rare interrogative morpheme *sːV-, heavily influenced by the word for 'man / person'.
In Hinukh, the absolutive stem ɬu originates from the oblique one.
In Dido and Khwarshi, the absolutive stems of 'who' differ, but in both cases coincide with those of 'what' (q.v.): interrogative *š(ː)i- [NCED: 986] + the bound pronominal morphemes *bV [NCED: 321] or *wV [NCED: 222] in Dido; the scantily attested interrogative pronominal morpheme *hi- [NCED: 491] + the bound pronominal morphemes *bV in Khwarshi.
We suppose that Dido reflects the Proto-Tsezic situation with *š(ː)i- in the absolutive stem and *ɬːu- in the ergative and oblique stem. The main advantage of such a reconstruction is that the proposed paradigm etymologically coincides with the Avar suppletive paradigm for 'who?' (šːi-class [abs.] / ɬːi- [erg., obl.]).
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morpheme, used in the absolutive stem of the pronoun 'who?' (with polysemy 'who / what' already in Proto-Tsezic). The rest of the paradigm can be reconstructed as ɬːu- [erg., obl.] / ɬːi [gen.], see [NCED: 1062]. The oblique and ergative stem ɬːu- is retained in all the lects except for Hunzib, where the interrogative morpheme *sV- [NCED: 958] is used instead. The specific genitive form *ɬːi can be reconstructed at least for Proto-West Tsezic (retained in Hinukh and Khwarshi); we prefer to project it onto the Proto-Tsezic level.
Khalilov 1995: 100, 306. Polysemy: 'woman / mother' (only as 'mother' in [Madieva 1965: 162]). Browsing through [Khalilov 1995] suggests that it is the basic term for 'woman'. Cf. some examples: “insane woman” [Khalilov 1995: 31], “this woman” [Khalilov 1995: 54], “to call women for help” [Khalilov 1995: 57], “The women were occupied in potato weeding” [Khalilov 1995: 58], “lean woman” [Khalilov 1995: 59], “weak woman” [Khalilov 1995: 96], “The women have finished their work” [Khalilov 1995: 101].
In [Karimova 2014], parallel compound forms for 'woman' are also quoted: Khwarshi proper ʁini-hadam {гъинигьадам}, Inkhokwari, Kwantlada ʁine-hadam {гъинегьадам}, literally 'woman-person' with hadam 'person' q.v.
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔaqV
NCED: 530. Distribution: Two roots enter into competition:
1) *ʔaqV [NCED: 530], which can be reconstructed as the Proto-East Tsezic word for 'woman' (in Bezhta proper it was superseded by *ʔiyV 'mother' [NCED: 673]). This root, modified with the suffix -l-, also expresses the meaning 'woman' in Hinukh, which makes it a good candidate for the status of the Proto-Tsezic term for 'woman'. Cf. the paronymous adjective *ʔaq-y- 'female' (with the common adjectival suffix), attested in East and West Tsezic.
2) *ʁˤinV (~ ʁːˤ-) [NCED: 900], which means 'woman' in Dido and Khwarshi, lost in the rest of the lects.
We follow the formal distribution and reconstruct *ʔaqV as the Proto-Tsezic root for 'woman'; external comparison supports it (this root has the same basic status in Andian). In Dido-Khwarshi, it was superseded by *ʁˤinV, whose original Proto-Tsezic meaning is unclear; external comparison suggests that *ʁˤinV could mean 'women (pl.)'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for nasalized ã in Inkhokwari Khwarshi.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Number:100
Word:yellow
Hunzib (proper):mačʼab {мачIаб}-1
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 120, 200; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Bokarev 1961: 174. Borrowed from Avar dialectal mˈačʼa-b 'yellow'. In [van den Berg 1995: 318, 349], the Hunzib proper word for 'yellow' is quoted as mačʼ-d-u - either an adapted loanword or an error.
A second, inherited, Hunzib proper term for 'yellow' could be hakʼa-s {гьакIас} [Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 61], but in [van den Berg 1995: 300, 349], this is glossed as 'pink'. hakʼa-s means 'red' in the Garbutli dialect and 'yellow' in the Naxada dialect. Literally 'of flower, floral' from hakʼ 'flower', see 'red' for further notes.
Bezhta (proper):uk-li-ʔis {уклиъис}1
Khalilov 1995: 247, 306; Madieva 1965: 187. Derived from uk, obl. uk-li- 'yellow color; a k. of grass' [Khalilov 1995: 247; Madieva 1965: 187].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234. A compound possessive adjective in -s with boχa-la from boχ 'grass / hay' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 100] and the second element uk(o-), which corresponds to Bezhta proper uk 'yellow color; a k. of grass', uk-li-ʔis 'yellow'.
Khwarshi proper *čʼečʼ-y-u may be cognate to Inkhokwari-Kwantlada ečʼu-kʼa, if the initial čʼ- is the result of some kind of reduplication.
Proto-Tsezic:*ʔečʼV- ~ ħečʼV-
NCED: 557. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in West Tsezic lects (except for Khwarshi proper), lost in East Tsezic. In East Tsezic, 'yellow' is expressed by various new formations from 'hay', 'flower', 'a k. of grass' or by an Avar loanword.
Replacements: {'grass, hay' > 'yellow'} (Tlyadal Bezhta), {'flower' > 'yellow'} (Khoshar-Khota Bezhta), {'a k. of grass' > 'yellow'} (Bezhta proper).
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 179, 198; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; van den Berg 1995: 67, 293; Bokarev 1961: 169, 174. Old adjective, used as adverb and postposition.
A second candidate is bitoː-(zo), explained in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 87] as 'far (but the object is visible)'; derived from the adverb bito 'away' [Forker 2013: 349]. We treat meqi and bitoː-(zo) as synonyms.
A second candidate is bita-y, explained in [Khalilov 1999: 60] as 'far (but the object is visible)'. We treat maqˤi and bita-y as synonyms.
Distinct from specific naːqˤo {на̄Iхъо} 'far behind (the object is visible)' [Khalilov 1999: 197], taːqˤo {та̄Iхъо} 'far ahead (the object is visible)' [Khalilov 1999: 234].
In [Karimova 2014], ƛilo {лIило} is also quoted as a second expression for 'far', cf. notes on Kwantlada Khwarshi.
Kwantlada Khwarshi: miqe {михъе} 'far' [Karimova 2014; Khalilova 2009: 112, 118, 120, 133]. In [Khalilova 2009], apparently erroneously transcribed as miqʼe (with the gloss 'far away'). Cf. some examples: "The school where we are going now is far away" [Khalilova 2009: 214], "Then the son and the father went far away" [Khalilova 2009: 120].
Distinct from ƛʼihõ ~ ƛʼiho, which is glossed as 'far away' in [Khalilova 2009: 14, 89, 118], although it actually means 'aside, sideward, down hill', as can be seen from [Khalilova 2009: 118, 120].
Cf. the adverb ƛilʸo 'on the plains' [Khalilova 2009: 118]; in [Karimova 2014], this adverb is quoted as a second expression for 'far'.
Proto-Tsezic:*miqˤV
NCED: 644. Distribution: Two forms enter into competition:
1) *čʼiχː-o (~ -ʁ-) [NCED: 269], which means 'far' in East Tsezic (originally an adjective), lost in West Tsezic;
2) *miqˤV [NCED: 644], meaning 'far' in West Tsezic, lost in East Tsezic.
There is no Tsezic evidence as such to make a single choice, but external comparison speaks in favour of *miqˤV, since its cognates mean 'far' in Avar. On the other hand, the North Caucasian etymology of *čʼiχː-o, proposed in [NCED: 269], seems rather weak.
Semantics and structure: Either an adverbial or an adjectival stem.
Number:101
Word:far
Hunzib (proper):
Bezhta (proper):ataː {ата̄}2
Khalilov 1995: 29.
Khoshar-Khota Bezhta:ataː2
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231.
Tlyadal Bezhta:ataː2
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231.
Hinukh:bitoː ~ bitoː-zo {бито̄(зо)}2
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 87, 433. Historically, apparently < b=itoː with the fossilized class exponent b=. If the word corresponds to Bezhta ataː, the archaic labilized variant **bütoː is expected.
A second, apparently, less common candidate is bakʼːaw {бакIкIав} 'heavy / difficult' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 56], borrowed from Avar b=akʼa-w 'heavy / difficult'.
NCED: 513. Distribution: Retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects except for Khwarshi, where it was superseded by unclear *class=Vtʼ-y-u without further etymology.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *cĩyo- (in Proto-West Tsezic, the direct stem was levelled after the oblique one).
Khalilov 1995: 113, 312; Madieva 1965: 148. Polysemy: 'short (spatial) / short (temporal) / small in height (of person)'. The only found example for 'short (spatial)' is "short sleeves" [Khalilov 1995: 121].
Distinct from kʼatʼː-o, which is glossed as generic 'short' with two examples: "short dress", "short tail" in [Khalilov 1995: 168]. Actually kʼatʼː-o is a rare word, meaning specifically 'dock-tailed, short-tailed (Russian куцый)' [M. Khalilov, p.c.].
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 236, 237, 456; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. Polysemy: 'short (spatial) / small in height (of person)'. Note the irregular deglottalization in kʼotː-u < *kʼotʼ-y-u.
A second candidate is the borrowed term qʼoqʼaw {къокъав} with polysemy: 'short (spatial) / short (temporal)' [Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 219, 456] < Avar qʼːoqʼːa-w 'short (spatial) / short (temporal)'.
NCED: 1021. Distribution: Two forms enter into competition:
1) *class=ɔ̃šː-y-u [NCED: 1021], meaning 'short' in East Tsezic, lost in West Tsezic (for dubious West Tsezic cognates see notes on 'thin');
2) *kʼɔtʼV- A [NCED: 690], meaning 'short' in West Tsezic and 'dock-tailed, short-tailed' in Bezhta.
Provisionally we suppose that *class=ɔ̃šː-y-u had the Proto-Tsezic meaning 'short (in general)', whereas *kʼɔtʼV- meant 'dock-tailed, short-tailed' (this meaning is still retained in East Tsezic). It should be noted that both competing stems possess external cognates with the meaning 'short': *class=ɔ̃šː-y-u in Andian and Nakh, *kʼɔtʼV- in Lak, Dargi and Lezgian.
NCED: 1048. Distribution: One of the most stable Proto-Tsezic roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Tsezic lects.
Reconstruction shape: Vowel correspondences in the non-first syllables are irregular; č instead of k in Khwarshi proper is due to the influence of Andian languages (Chamalal, Bagvalal beča 'snake / worm').
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. May be formally analyzed as suffixed *bekV-lV with the relatively common nominal affix -lV, if we treat Hinukh bika 'worm', Asakh Dido biko 'worm' (q.v.) as retentions of the plain root stem. However, further external comparison points out that -lV is an integral part of the stem, whereas Hinukh bika and Asakh Dido biko 'worm' look like Andian loanwords.
Khalilov 1995: 287, 341. Glossed as 'thin' without semantic specification. The attested examples generally point to the meaning 'thin 2D': “thin peel” [Khalilov 1995: 45], “thin exercise book” [Khalilov 1995: 237], “thin layer”, “thin leaf”, “thin khinkal” [Khalilov 1995: 287]. But the example “thin fingers” [Khalilov 1995: 287] could also speak in favor of 'thin 1D'.
TsezEDb. Distribution: For East Tsezic, the following opposition can be safely reconstructed:
1) *š(ː)ũšː-y-u 'thin 2D' [NCED: 1021], for etymological discussion, see below;
2) *ƛam-y-u 'thin 1D' [NCED: 521], lost in West Tsezic.
The West Tsezic system was likely as follows:
1) *dada-r-u 'thin 2D', without further etymology.
2) *nišː-y-u ~ *nešː-y-u 'thin 1D' [NCED: 1021], for etymological discussion, see below.
The relationship between *š(ː)ũšː-y-u 'thin 2D' (East Tsezic) and *nišː-y-u ~ *nešː-y-u 'thin 1D' (West Tsezic) is quite uncertain. It has been proposed in [NCED: 1021] that both contain the same root as the adjective *class=ɔ̃šː-y-u 'short' vel sim. (q.v.). The authors of [NCED] imply that *š(ː)ũšː-y-u is some kind of reduplication; if so, *nišː-y-u ~ *nešː-y-u should contain the fossilized directional prefix n= (its function in such an adjective is unclear, however); the vocalic interchanges are inexplainable. The whole picture appears to be too complex and we prefer to treat *š(ː)ũšː-y-u, *nišː-y-u ~ *nešː-y-u and *class=ɔ̃šː-y-u as three unrelated items. Out of these, *class=ɔ{U+0303}šː-y-u finds an external etymology (see notes on 'short'), whereas *š(ː)ũšː-y-u and *nišː-y-u ~ *nešː-y-u are etymologically isolated.
The main candidate for the Proto-Tsezic meaning 'thin 1D' is *ƛam-y-u (East Tsezic), since it possesses external comparanda with the same semantics.
As for Proto-Tsezic 'thin 2D', there is no evidence to help us choose between *š(ː)ũšː-y-u and *dada-r-u. Only for the sake of symmetry, we fill the slot with *dada-r-u, retained in West Tsezic.
Khalilov 1995: 185, 341; Madieva 1965: 174. Polysemy: 'thin / lean, skinny'. The attested examples generally point to the meaning 'thin 1D': “thin line” [Khalilov 1995: 201], “thin string” [Khalilov 1995: 221], “thin stick” [Khalilov 1995: 249], “thin twig” [Khalilov 1995: 272], “thin stalk” [Khalilov 1995: 279]. But the examples “thin book” [Khalilov 1995: 185], “thin bark” [Khalilov 1995: 259] also speak in favor of 'thin 2D'.
Additionally, the loanword tʼerenab {тIеренаб} 'thin / lean' is attested [Khalilov 1995: 244] < Avar tʼerena-b 'thin 2D/1D'.
Bezhta čʼemeʔab {чIемеъаб}, which is glossed as 'thin' with the only example being “thin thread” in [Khalilov 1995: 281], apparently means 'frail', since it was borrowed from Avar čʼemeʕa-b 'frail, fragile'.
NCED: 767. Distribution: Two forms enter into competition:
1) *zːaƛV, which means 'wind' in East Tsezic and apparently lacks any further etymology;
2) *ɬːacV [NCED: 767], meaning 'wind' in West Tsezic, lost in East Tsezic.
Since *ɬːacV has an imperfect, but overall acceptable external etymology (its Andian comparanda mean 'voice, shout'), it has a formal advantage over the isolated *zːaƛV.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the unexplainable h instead of ɬ in Inkhokwari Khwarshi.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Isakov & Khalilov 2001: 50, 243; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; van den Berg 1995: 290; Bokarev 1961: 152, 182. Polysemy: 'worm (in general) / helminth / caterpillar / insect, bug (in general)'. Paradigm: bǝtʼi [abs.] / bǝtʼ-lo- [obl.]. In the absolutive form, used with additional polysemy: 'insect / snot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 51; van den Berg 1995: 290], although for the meaning 'snot' the secondary regular oblique stem bǝtʼo- is used - perhaps a loan translation of Russian kaz'lavka 'snot', literally 'little bug'.
Khalilov & Isakov 2005: 81, 546; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88. A generic term. As noted in [Khalilov & Isakov 2005], the specific expression for 'earthworm' is raƛʼ-moɬes bika (from raƛʼ 'earth'). Apparently borrowed from Andian languages (Tindi bekʸa ‘snake / worm’, etc. [NCED: 1048]).
A generic term: 'worm', including 'earthworm'. Polysemy: 'snake / worm' in all dialects. Additionally, in [Karimova 2014], the loanword ħapara {хIапара} is quoted as a synonym for 'worm' in all dialects (< Avar ħapara 'worm (in general)').
Proto-Tsezic:*ʁʷimilV ~ *ʁʷimirV
NCED: 817. Distribution: An unstable word with several Tsezic stems competing with each other:
1) *bǝtʼV (~ -ǝ̃-) [NCED: 290], meaning 'worm' in East Tsezic, lost in West Tsezic; the suffix -lV in Bezhta is apparently due to influence of bekela 'snake';
2) *ʁʷimilV (~ *ʁːʷ-, r) [NCED: 817], only retained in Kidero Dido;
3) unclear forms acuryo, aciro in Dido dialects;
4) *bekVlV A [NCED: 1048], which means 'snake' everywhere in Tsezic, also with polysemy 'snake / worm' in Khwarshi.
Any of these stems could represent the Proto-Tsezic term for '(earth)worm'. For example, the Andian cognates of Tsezic *bekVlV have regular polysemy 'snake / worm' which implies that it is theoretically possible to reconstruct this stem with polysemy 'snake / worm' already on the Proto-Avar-Ando-Tsezic and correspondingly on the Proto-Tsezic levels (if so, Tsezic *bekVlV independently lost its meaning 'worm' in Tsezic lects outside Khwarshi). On the other hand, it is equally or even more probable that the Proto-Tsezic meaning of *bekVlV was just 'snake', whereas the Khwarshi polysemy 'snake / worm' is a late introduction under the influence of the same polysemy in neighboring Andian languages.
Since it is *ʁʷimilV that has the best and least questionable external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'worm', we posit this stem as the Proto-Tsezic term for 'worm (in general, incl. earthworm)'.
The original meaning of *bǝtʼV (only retained as East Tsezic 'worm') remains unclear.