Kibrik et al. 1977b: 277, 354; Chumakina et al. 2007; Dirr 1908: 47. Quoted as mirči ~ murči in [Mikailov 1967: 95, 193], but as marči in [Mikailov 1967: 156 (65)]. As noted in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 277], mˈarči normally refers to substantives of classes 1 and 2, scil. human beings (the same in [Chumakina et al. 2007]).
Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1977b; Mikailov 1967; Dirr 1908] suggests that the adjective mˈarči is the most common expression for 'all (omnis)', which can be used as both attributive and non-attributive, referring to human beings. Examples are numerous, e.g., "All youths like this girl" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 11, 66, 67, 90], "All men have come", "you do say to all the people that..." [Mikailov 1967: 95, 156, 158]. Examples for non-attributive mˈarči 'all (omnis)' referring to human beings are also well attested, e.g., "I have killed them all" [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 173], "Everybody was happy, when she died" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 10, 11, 21, 27, 46, 104, etc.].
A reasonable solution should be to treat expressions for 'omnis (human beings)' and 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' as synonyms, but the latter basic term cannot be established from available sources.
A possible candidate for 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' could be the adverb/adjective kʼilliy-class-u [Mikailov 1967: 95, 186; Dirr 1908: 48] with polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. The following examples for 'omnis' are found: "All the bull calves went home" [Mikailov 1967: 95], "All the horses" [Dirr 1908: 48], and also referring to humans: "All the women" [Dirr 1908: 48]. In more modern sources, however, this word is quoted as kʼellˈey-class-u with the exclusive meaning 'entirely, wholly', i.e. 'totus' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 264].
More rare seems to be the adjective bˈatː-ˈešːu-tːu-class 'totus / omnis' [Chumakina et al. 2007] (examples: "I have filled a whole notebook with my writing", "All the sheep have come back"), [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 200] from the adverb bˈatː-ˈešːu 'completely' ← the verb bˈatː-ˈešːa- 'to come true, be fulfilled (of wish); to pass, come (of time)'.
Cf. also various words for 'all (totus)':
The adverb ˈiːkʼen [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 251, 354; Mikailov 1967: 95, 182], which normally expresses non-attributive 'all (totus)' referring to inanimate and abstract objects. E.g., "She demonstrated her hair and all (the rest, i.e. her body)", "Then this girl said everything" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 32, 37, 41, 93, 94, 97, etc.]. But there is one example for attributive ˈiːkʼen 'all (omnis)' referring to inanimate objects: "He (the physician) cured all fractures" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116], and one example for attributive ˈiːkʼen 'all (totus)' referring to an inanimate object: "I have latched onto all of the property" [Mikailov 1967: 95].
The adjectives gʷˈey-class-u and gʷˈey-class-u-hˈoːnu, which are explicitly glossed as 'all (totus), whole' in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 234, 352] and [Chumakina et al. 2007] (hˈoːnu means 'some, any' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 240]) with examples like "He has left all his property to the son", "The whole girl has been covered with gold", "I was washing the dishes yesterday, but could not wash the whole lot" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 41, 234; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 148]. In [Mikailov 1967: 95, 176] this adjective is quoted as gʷiy-class-u with additional examples for the meaning 'all (totus)'.
More marginal seems to be the adjective hˈannu-class-hˈoːnu 'all (totus), whole' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 236, 354], consisting of hˈannu 'which one' + hˈoːnu means 'some, any'.
The last term is the adjective ˈobšːi 'all (totus/omnis)', glossed as 'all, whole, every' in [Chumakina et al. 2007] and supplemented by two examples: "All the people [sg.] went in different directions", "Everybody went to the fields". This word has not been found in other sources.
Kryts (proper):vari-1
Saadiev 1994: 422. Polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. Apparently a Turkic loanword: Proto-Turkic predicative *baːr 'there is, there exists', which shifted to 'all (omnis or totus)' in many Turkic languages, although Azerbaijani var is probably attested only with the meaning 'there is'.
Alyk Kryts:girt-1
Authier 2009: 107. Polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. The same term in other dialects: Dzhek, Xaput gɨrt [Saadiev 1994: 422]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dialectal gird 'wholly, completely' or directly from Iranian, cf. Talysh gɨrd 'all (totus)'.
Budukh:pitin {питин}-1
Meylanova 1984: 119, 193; Alekseev 1994: 270; Talibov 2007: 130. Polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani bütün 'all (totus/omnis)'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 230. The meaning is 'all (omnis)'; it is the regular plural form from si-ne {сине} 'all (totus)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 230].
Distinct from the paronymous säye-nä {саьенаь} 'all (totus)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 224, 327] with the examples: "I have got it all" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229b], "Everything depends upon you" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 23a], "He has sold everything" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 23b].
An additional term is bütün {буьтуьн} 'all (totus/omnis)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 43], borrowed from Azerbaijani bütün 'all (totus/omnis)'.
Luchek Rutul:
Not attested.
RUT_NOTES:
Mukhad si-ʔin, siyä-nä and Ixrek si-ne, säye-nä apparently represent historical derivatives from the Rutul numeral sa '1'.
Dirr 1907: 28, 114, 170; Suleymanov 1993: 134. The form in ž- is from [Dirr 1907] (in some cases Dirr transcribes Gequn ǯ as ž). Meaning 'all (omnis)'.
Distinct from inherited kʼil-di 'all (totus)' [Dirr 1907: 28, 130, 169], an adverb derived from kʼil 'head' q.v.
Fite Aghul:ǯalːa-1
Suleymanov 1993: 134. Two synonyms are quoted in [Suleymanov 1993]: ǯalːa and wari, both of them probably with polysemy: 'totus / omnis'.
The word wari was ultimately borrowed from Turkic; see notes on Kryts (proper).
The second term (ǯilːa ~ ǯalːa) also seems to be a loanword. The Koshan and proper Aghul forms are quoted as ǯˈilːa ~ ǯˈalːa in [Suleymanov 2003: 80]; the initial stress points to a recent borrowing (see [Magometov 1970: 20]), although the source is not entirely clear (Arabic?).
Northern Tabasaran:warˈi ~ warːˈi-1
Uslar 1979: 145, 622, 991; Dirr 1905: 45, 159, 225. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus)'. This is actually the word from the Khanag subdialect; the proper Dyubek term for 'all' is unknown.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: warˈi {вари} 'all (omnis / totus)' [Genko 2005: 32].
Southern Tabasaran:wˈari {вари}-1
Genko 2005: 32. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus)'. This is actually the word from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'all' is unknown.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: wˈari {вари} 'all (omnis / totus)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 93; Zhirkov 1948: 105]. There also exists the rare literary word marcːi-yi {марццийи} ‘all’ [Khanmagomedov 1957: 43] (not found in other sources; the exact meaning is unknown) - literally ‘cleanly’, derived from the adjective marcːˈi ‘clean’ [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 224] with the common adverbial suffix -yi (for which see [Magometov 1965: 327]).
TAB_NOTES:
The loanword warˈi / wˈari is the Common Tabasaran term for 'all (omnis / totus)' [Magometov 1965: 189]. The form was ultimately borrowed from Turkic, see notes on Kryts (proper).
Gyune Lezgi:warˈi-1
Uslar 1896: 79, 366, 606. Polysemy: 'all (omnis) / all (totus)'. A close, but less frequent synonym is mixˈiz 'all (omnis/totus)' [Uslar 1896: 80, 507, 606].
The same in Literary Lezgi: wirˈi {вири} 'all (omnis/totus)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 78; Gadzhiev 1950: 80; Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 46; Haspelmath 1993: 200, 511, 515] with the close, but less frequent synonym mixˈiz {михьиз} 'all (omnis/totus)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 241; Gadzhiev 1950: 80].
The word wari ~ wiri was ultimately borrowed from Turkic; see notes on Kryts (proper). The second term mixˈi-z literally means 'cleanly', derived from the inherited adjective mixˈi 'clean' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 240] with the common adverbial suffix -z (for which see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 220 f., 222 f.]).
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: In the majority of languages, the meaning 'all' (omnis or with polysemy omnis / totus) is represented by Turkic or Iranian loanwords. Inherited forms are:
1) Tsakhur gɨrgɨ-n, derived from the old root for 'round' q.v.
2) Rutul si-ʔin, si-ne-bɨr, apparently derived from the old root for 'one' q.v.
3) Lezgi mixˈi-z, literally 'cleanly' from the adjective 'clean'.
4) Tabasaran marcːi-yi, literally 'cleanly' from the adjective 'clean'.
5) Caucasian Albanian ceχ and Archi mˈarči, both are etymologically unclear.
Tabasaran marcːi-yi and Archi mˈarči are indeed phonetically similar, but the affricate correspondence is irregular.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ruqːˤ 'ashes' [Uslar 1979: 900, 994; Dirr 1905: 203, 229]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Genko 2005: 135].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Genko 2005: 135]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 263].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 291, 363; Mikailov 1967: 196. Not found in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010; Dirr 1908]. Distinct from qal 'human skin (q.v.); fruit peel' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 295].
The only term for 'bark' in [Dirr 1908] is, however, qal 'peel; bark; shell' [Dirr 1908: 162, 211]. It is very probable that this reflects an archaic usage, before qal 'skin / bark' was superseded by pˈaqʼut in the meaning 'bark' and its semantic usage was narrowed to 'skin' q.v. It must be noted that qal is also quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 412] as the only translation for 'bark', but this may be an error.
It should be noted that Dirr quotes two different terms for 'bark': Mukhad qːabɨχ [Dirr 1912: 152, 192] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark') and Mukhad & Shinaz čʼɨχɨn [Dirr 1912: 181, 182, 192]. The latter can in fact mean simply 'birch bark', cf. the Luchek data below.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97. It must be noted that in [Shaumyan 1941: 187] and [Suleymanov 2003: 114] Burshag gal is glossed only as 'shell', whereas in [Suleymanov 2003: 114] the meaning 'bark' is ascribed to the Burshag word ʁark.
In the Khudig subdialect 'bark' sounds as ʁark [Magometov 1970: 41].
Suleymanov 2003: 114; Shaumyan 1941: 187. Polysemy: 'bark / shell / peel'. The same in the Kurag subdialect: qːark 'bark' [Magometov 1970: 41].
AGX_NOTES:
It seems that qːark can assuredly be reconstructed as the Proto-Aghul term for 'bark / shell'. In some modern dialects this polysemy tends to be eliminated, with the meaning 'bark' transferred to other words - gužal ~ žigal in Keren or gal in Koshan (Burshag).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ɣal with polysemy: 'bark / peel / skin (i.e. hide?)' [Uslar 1979: 653, 996; Dirr 1905: 162, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ɣal {ггал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Genko 2005: 39].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ɣal {ггал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Genko 2005: 39] (the plus sign is apparently omitted by accident, although the white space between the bracket and the siglum "Х." is present). The same in Literary Tabasaran: ɣal {гал} with polysemy: 'bark / rolled out dough' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 96].
The same in Literary Lezgi: čkːal {чкал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 373; Gadzhiev 1950: 308].
Somewhat differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kan 'bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the second Khlyut word for 'bark' is čkːal. The difference between the two terms is unknown, but Khlyut kan is clearly secondary, because its literary counterpart kan means 'dandruff; epidermis' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 149] and the external comparison proves that the semantics of 'skin' is primary [NCED: 699].
Proto-Lezgian:*ƛːal1
NCED: 789. Distribution: An unstable word, superseded by a loanword from Azerbaijaniin Kryts, Budukh and Tsakhur and probably by a loanword from Avar in archaic Archi. Four inherited stems enter into competition: (1) *ƛːal (Udi 'bark / peel / shell', Tabasaran 'bark / peel' and Koshan Aghul 'bark'), (2) *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la (Rutul 'bark / peel', Lezgi 'bark / peel' and Keren Aghul 'bark'), (3) *parqʼːulː (modern Archi), (4) *qːärkʷa (Proto-Aghul 'bark / shell').
The last of these, *qːärkʷa, is formally a Proto-Aghul innovation (Lezgian comparison suggests the development 'a k. of hide' > 'bark' [NCED: 455 f.]).
Two stems with the best distribution - ƛːal and *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la - are formally equivalent candidates, and any historical scenario would imply certain zig-zag or parallel semantic shifts.
External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the original meaning of *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la was 'noodles' or 'a k. of food rising to the surface after boiling' [NCED: 439]. This semantics is retained in Budukh ('noodles'), but underwent such shifts as 'noodles' > 'sour cream' in Tsakhur, 'noodles' > 'bast, bass' in Kryts and 'noodles' > 'bark, peel' in Rutul, Lezgi, Keren Aghul. The latter shift is not a genetical feature of Rutul, Lezgi and Keren Aghul, but is either an independent development or, rather, an areal isogloss between adjacent territories (see [Koryakov 2006: map 13]).
As for *ƛːal, external North Caucasian comparison points to the original meaning 'color' with the shift 'color' > 'surface' [NCED: 789]; however, it is not particularly risky to assume the shift 'color' > 'bark, peel' for Proto-Lezgian. The meaning 'bark, peel' is retained in Udi and Tabasaran, and emerges as a secondary development in Koshan Aghul (in Proto-Aghul this root apparently meant 'shell').
The fourth inherited term for 'bark', *parqʼːulː, which is attested in the basic meaning in modern Archi, can be a recent introduction, if Dirr's data are correct. If so, this Proto-Lezgian stem demonstrates the shift 'burdock, plantain' > 'bark' in Archi [NCED: 865]. It is important that Lezgian *parqʼːulː finds Avar cognates with the meaning 'bark' [NCED: 865], but it is not clear whether *mVqʼːVr- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Avar-Andic term for 'bark' (perhaps we are dealing with independent developments in Archi and Avar). Note that in the Lezgian languages, *parqʼːulː demonstrates various consonants irregularities of dissimilative/assimilative nature [NCED: 865], particularly the Archi form is pˈaqʼut with lax qʼ (not **pˈaqʼːutpace [NCED]).
Gukasyan 1974: 202; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222; Mobili 2010: 261. Glossed as 'belly, paunch, stomach' in [Gukasyan 1974: 202]. Quoted as a translation for 'stomach' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]. Glossed as 'belly' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], distinct from mäːda 'stomach' (< Azerbaijani mädä 'stomach') in the same source.
Gukasyan 1974: 93; Mobili 2010: 72; Fähnrich 1999: 11; Schiefner 1863: 102; Schulze 2001: 262; Starchevskiy 1891: 496. Glossed as 'belly, paunch, stomach, womb'. In [Gukasyan 1974] (followed by [Mobili 2010]) quoted with an error: buqːun {букъун} with a superfluous {ъ}. The variant bukun has also been checked by Yu. Lander (p.c.) in the modern subdialect of the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village.
Schulze [Schulze 2001: 262] suspects a borrowing from Arabic butʼuːn (the plural form of Arabic batʼn- 'belly, stomach, womb'); the hypothesis is unconvincing both phonetically and morphologically.
UDI_NOTES:
Both terms (tapan and bukun) look suspicious, although no potential sources of borrowing have been revealed up to now. If both forms are indigenous, it is rather tapan that should be postulated as the original Udi word for 'belly' in the light of external comparanda.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested. Cf. kaq 'womb' in the collocation ne kaq 'mother's womb' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-32].
Archi:lˈagi3
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271, 359.
According to [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271, 336, 359] there are two closely synonymous terms for 'belly, stomach': lˈagi and χˤurχˈu. Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1977b], however, suggests that lˈagi is applied to humans, whereas χˤurχˈu normally denotes stomach of an animal. Cf. the following examples for lˈagi: "I have a stomach ache" (lit. "my stomach aches") [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 27, 28, 271, 32, 33, 38, 39], "She is pregnant" (lit. "a child in her belly"), "stepbrother" (lit. "brother with a different belly") [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271].
Examples for χˤurχˈu are: "Give me the ram's stomach" etc. [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 25, 26, 28], "I have given him (i.e., to the child of the king of beasts) the name Full Belly" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 336], "A dried cow stomach" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 336].
Two terms, lˈagi and χˤurχˈu, are discriminated in [Dirr 1908]: lˈagi is translated as 'paunch, belly (Russian: брюхо, живот)' [Dirr 1908: 164, 207], χˤurχˈu - as 'stomach (Russian: желудок)' [Dirr 1908: 190, 207].
Conversely, in [Mikailov 1967] two terms are opposed as lˈagi 'abdominal cavity (Russian: брюшная полость)' [Mikailov 1967: 190] vs. χˤurχˈu 'stomach, belly (Russian: желудок, живот)' [Mikailov 1967: 201a] (the Archi word is omitted due to typographic error).
We fill the slot with the etymologically obscure word lˈagi. This resembles Lak laqʼˤi 'belly, stomach', which is likewise unetymologizable, but the Archi term can hardly be a Lak loanword due to phonetic difference (for Lak loanwords in Archi see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 53 f.]). It is proposed in [NCED: 755] that Archi lˈagi was borrowed from Avar lagˈa 'body part, organ; body-build, frame, figure; stature', but this solution seems dubious due to semantic difference (cf. the late transparent Avar loanword in Archi lagˈa ‘body part’ [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271]).
Distinct from kummˈullin noƛʼ 'stomach, gaster (Russian желудок)', literally 'food's house' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36] - a loan translation from Avar (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222] this is incorrectly quoted as the only Archi term for 'stomach').
Authier 2009: 23, 36, 49, 55, 105, 199, 268, 288, 321, 347. Paradigm: fan [abs.] / fun- [obl.]. According to examples, a generic term with wide application.
Distinct from the more marginal term fɨn {фын}, glossed as 'belly' in [Meylanova 1984: 143, 212] with the only example being: "to have a stomach ache".
Distinct from qːursaʁ 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36], borrowed from Azerbaijani gursag 'abomasum; stomach, belly'.
According to [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222], the meaning 'stomach' can also be expressed with the loanword maʔda {маъда} (< Azerbaijani mädä 'stomach' or rather directly from Arabic maʕd-at- 'stomach').
Dirr 1912: 174, 190; Ibragimov 1978: 39, 114. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach', applied to humans and animals. It should be noted that in [Makhmudova 2001: 43], uxun is specified as 'belly of animal' as opposed to iči 'belly' (i.e. 'belly of human'?) [Makhmudova 2001: 12, 41]; the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani ič (possessed ič-i) 'entrails'. In [Ibragimov 1978: 39], however, Mukhad iči is glossed as 'pluck'.
Distinct from armaz 'belly, paunch', quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 169, 222] without additional specifications.
Ixrek Rutul:ämräz {аьмраьз}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 21, 339. In [Ibragimov 1978: 198, 222], quoted as amraz. This seems to be the basic word for 'belly' in Ixrek, cf. the examples: "It became tight in the belly" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 88b], "Bellyaches have begun" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 166a], "To crawl on the belly" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 279b]. Ixrek ämräz ~ amraz, Mukhad armaz, Muxrek amraz 'belly' [Ibragimov 1978: 169, 186] looks like a recent loanword, although the source is not clear (cf. Arabic ʔamarr- 'intestines').
A second (apparently less frequent) term is the inherited ufun 'belly; stomach' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 257].
A third candidate is laqʼˤa 'paunch, belly' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 178], borrowed from Lak laqʼˤi 'belly, stomach'.
Luchek Rutul:iči-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36. Glossed as 'belly (Russian: живот)'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani ič (possessed ič-i) 'entrails'.
Distinct from šaxː 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36]. It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 115], 'stomach' is quoted as Koshan ʁʷag and šahar, but without exact specification of the subdialect.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Uslar 1979: 942, 989; Dirr 1905: 213]; cf. also the expression lekrin fun 'calf of the leg', literally 'belly of the leg' [Dirr 1905: 213]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Genko 2005: 161].
Distinct from Khanag maʔad-an 'stomach' [Dirr 1905: 195, 228] (ultimately borrowed from Arabic maʕd-at- 'stomach').
The same in the Khiv subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Genko 2005: 161]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fun 'belly; stomach' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 310].
The same in Literary Lezgi: rufˈun {руфун} 'belly' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 281; Gadzhiev 1950: 200; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 516]. Distinct from literary χuk [abs.] / χʷkːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.] {хук} with polysemy: 'stomach / gourmandizer' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 349; Haspelmath 1993: 512, 527].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut rɨfˈɨn with polysemy: 'belly / stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].
Proto-Lezgian:*uo=ɬʷɨn ~ *ro=ɬʷɨn6
NCED: 771. Distribution: The best candidate is *uo=ɬʷɨn ~ *ro=ɬʷɨn, attested with the generic meaning 'belly' in all Nuclear Lezgian lects except for Budukh, but apparently totally lost in the outliers (Udi, Archi). External North Caucasian comparison also seems to confirm =ɬʷɨn as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'belly' [NCED: 771].
Another candidate is Nidzh Udi tapan ~ Budukh tǝpǝn 'belly', but these isolated forms seem very suspicious and rather look like a wandering loanword (although the source of borrowing is unknown). Vartashen Udi bukun and Archi lˈagi 'belly' are likewise isolated; they could only formally pretend to the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'belly'. It should be noted that the authors of [NCED] follow Gukasyan's typo that transcribes the Vartashen Udi form as buqːun - actually, the proposed Udi-Archi comparison [NCED: 297] should be rejected.
In some lects *uo=ɬʷɨn ~ *ro=ɬʷɨn was superseded with loanwords (Luchek Rutul < Azerbaijani; Ixrek Rutul < ?).
Gukasyan 1974: 131; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Dirr 1903: 2, 10; Schiefner 1863: 83; Schulze 2001: 288; Starchevskiy 1891: 492. Polysemy: 'big / old'. A second term for 'big' is quoted in [Fähnrich 1999: 18; Schiefner 1863: 105] and [Starchevskiy 1891: 492]: yeka ~ yeko 'groß, большой' (borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large').
UDI_NOTES:
Udi kala is an Iranian loanword: cf. Persian kalaː-n 'large, great, big; elder', Judeo-Tat kälä 'big, large', etc. Pace [Schulze 2001: 288], kala can hardly be borrowed directly from from Judeo-Tat kälä, since Judeo-Tat linguistic influence on Udi is very modest (if it exists at all) and the idea of a borrowing of such a basic term cannot be accepted.
Caucasian Albanian: boˤ-nʸi [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11, 44], glossed as 'great, big, tall'. Apparently an important retention.
Dirr 1912: 166, 185; Ibragimov 1978: 69. Cf. Dirr's examples: "big house", "big (= important) person", "elder brother", "My son / the tree becomes big (= grows up) rapidly".
A second candidate is äyk-äd 'big' [Ibragimov 1978: 39, 125] with the more modern variant ekː-ed [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583; Makhmudova 2001: 95], borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.
According to [Makhmudova 2001: 95], in the modern language the inherited form qʼux-dɨ 'big' is applied to animated objects, whereas the borrowed ekːe-d - to inanimate ones (apparently Makhmudova means human beings vs. animals/inanimate objects); cf. an example for qʼux-dɨ ~ qʼux-du: "big father" [Ibragimov 1978: 69]. We prefer to follow Dirr's norm.
Ixrek Rutul:qˤač-dɨ {хъаIчды}5
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 278. Glossed as 'big, large'. According to examples that could be found, this seems to be the basic word for 'big', cf "large windows" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 68a], "big stones" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 95b], "The children became big (= grew up)" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 278a].
A second candidate is eke-dɨ 'large' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 309], cf. such examples as: "large (court)yard" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 80a], "large family" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 272a], "You became big (= grew up) rapidly", "to do a big job", "to hold a high post" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 309b]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.
A third candidate is qʼɨx-dɨ {кьыхьды} 'big' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 167, 323; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] erroneously quoted as kʼɨx-dɨ {кIыхьды}), but examples point rather to a more abstract sense, cf. "capital letters" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 79a], "He is a great dandy" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 90b].
In the Borch-Khnov dialect, only the Azerbaijani loanword äkːä-dɨ 'big' [Ibragimov 1978: 231] (quoted without specifications) is attested.
Both roots (Mukhad-Luchek qʼʷaxʸ- ~ qʼux- and Ixrek qˤač-) seem to be inherited, although their etymology is unknown. Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Suleymanov 2003: 18, 190. In [Suleymanov 2003], erroneously quoted as ʁaba-ni-r {гъабанир} and ʁa-ni-r {гъанир}.
A different Burshag term for 'big' is quoted by Shaumyan: aHa-r 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176], and the same word in the Arsug subdialect: aHa-d 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176]. According to [Suleymanov 2003: 85], however, Koshan aHa-d {ахIад} has the more specific meaning 'big, huge, enormous'. On the contrary, the Arsug or Khudig word for 'big' is quoted as ʁaba-ni-d in [Suleymanov 2003: 18, 190].
It should be noted, however, that, according to [Magometov 1970: 86], the Richa term for 'big' is Ha- (ħa?). The same in the Usug subdialect: aχˤe-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176].
Dirr 1907: 99, 169; Shaumyan 1941: 176. Cf. the examples: "big river" [Dirr 1907: 13], "big house", "big woman" [Dirr 1907: 17, 19]. Not quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990].
A second term is qːaba-n- (> qːaba-m-f), which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] as a neutral term for 'big', but in [Dirr 1907: 128] is glossed as 'big, huge'. In the discovered examples qːaba-n- is applied to an evil monster [Dirr 1907: 83] or to a human penis, which cannot fit the fox burrow [Dirr 1907: 76].
A third term for 'big' is azmam-f [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237], borrowed from Azerbaijani azman 'huge, enormous', dialectal 'large' (ultimately from Arabic ʕazˤiːm 'big').
The same adjective in other subdialects: Kurag aHa-f 'big' [Magometov 1970: 170], Tsirkhe äχä-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176], Duldug aHa-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176].
Distinct from Tpig azman-f, glossed as 'big, large' in [Suleymanov 2003: 18] (an Azerbaijani loanword, see notes on Gequn Aghul).
AGX_NOTES:
Data from Koshan and Keren dialects are rather discrepant, but it is clear that two Proto-Lezgian roots enter into competition in Aghul: *ʔaχˤɨ- and *pːVhˤV- / *hˤVpːV-. Both scenarios are possible for Proto-Aghul: *ʔaχˤɨ- could be the neutral term for 'big' (retained in non-Koshan dialects, but shifted to 'huge' in Koshan), whereas *hˤVpːV- '?' acquired the generic meaning 'big' in Koshan. On the other hand, *hˤVpːV- could be the Proto-Aghul term for 'big' (retained in Koshan, but lost in non-Koshan dialects), whereas *ʔaχˤɨ- meant 'huge' in Proto-Aghul, retained in Koshan, but shifted to generic 'big' in the non-Koshan dialect. External Lezgian comparison speaks in favor of the second solution.
Keren baba- is of unknown origin. It is proposed in [NCED: 316] to treat baba- as a reduplicated cognate of Koshan ʢaba-.
On the sporadic reduction of initial a- in the Aghul dialectal descendants of *ʔaχˤɨ- see [Suleymanov 1993: 42 f.] with other examples of this process.
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237. The tenseness of the uvular is obviously secondary.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: aχˤˈi with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Uslar 1979: 600, 989; Dirr 1905: 154, 224]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aχˤˈi {аьхи} 'big' [Genko 2005: 24].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: aχˤˈu {аьхю} with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Genko 2005: 24]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: aχˤˈu {аьхю} 'big; elder' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 71].
Literary Lezgi: čʼeχˈi {чIехи} with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 378; Gadzhiev 1950: 59; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 516]. A close synonym is literary yekˈe {еке} 'big, large' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 117; Gadzhiev 1950: 59; Haspelmath 1993: 493], but this term is less frequent. Lezgi yeke was borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.
Only the Azerbaijani loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yekˈe 'big' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].
Cf. the inherited term for 'big' in the Yarki dialect (Kyuri group): Nyutyug čʼeqi [Meylanova 1964: 96]. In the Yargun dialect (Quba group), čʼeχi means 'great; elder', whereas the generic word for 'big' is the borrowing yike ~ yeke [Babaliyeva 2007: 38, 48, 105, 106].
The historical phonetics of Lezgi dialects requires additional investigation, but the fluctuation q ~ χ (Gyune/Yarki čʼiqˈi/čʼeqi ~ literary/Yargun čʼeχˈi) seems irregular. Proceeding from general premises, one can suppose that the affricate q is primary here rather than the lenited χ, although external comparison speaks in favour of χ.
Proto-Lezgian:*pːVhˤV- ~ *hˤVpːV-6
NCED: 316. Distribution: From the distributional point of view, the best candidate is Proto-Lezgian *pːVhˤV- ~ *hˤVpːV-, which is retained in the generic meaning 'big' in Caucasian Albanian, South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Proto-Aghul, but underwent the shift 'big' > 'good' in Archi [NCED: 316].
The second candidate is *ʔaχˤɨ- [NCED: 511], attested as generic 'big' in Tsakhur, Tabasaran, non-Koshan Aghul. However, actually, *ʔaχˤɨ- might have been the Proto-Lezgian root for 'many' q.v. The assumed shift 'many' > 'big' cannot be an inherited feature of Tsakhur, Tabasaran and non-Koshan Aghul, but rather represents parallel independent innovations in Tsakhur and Tabasaran-Aghul (the Tabasaran-Aghul isogloss is apparently of an areal origin; the Proto-Aghul meaning of this root was probably something like 'huge').
The third candidate is *čʼaχV (~ -ä-) [NCED: 386], which means 'big (in general)' in Lezgi and 'massive' in Tabasaran. Despite some interesting external North Caucasian comparanda, this can hardly be considered a good candidate for Proto-Lezgian 'big'.
Various etymologically isolated roots for 'big' are found in Archi and the Rutul dialects; these do not look like loans, but lack Lezgian and North Caucasian cognates.
Inherited forms were superseded with loanwords in some lects (modern Udi < Iranian, Akhty Lezgi < Azerbaijani).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 286, 377; Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 123; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141. Polysemy: 'bird (in general) / gusset (in a sleeve)'. Paradigm: nocʼ [abs.] / nacʼ-ˈa [erg.].
In [Mikailov 1967: 194] nocʼ is glossed as 'small bird (in general); sparrow', although translated as 'bird (in general)' in the texts: "A bird is sitting on the branch" [Mikailov 1967: 60], "He, like a bird, has thrown himself upon the sea steed" [Mikailov 1967: 160, 162]. Similarly in [Dirr 1908: 170, 219] nocʼ is glossed as "sparrow; small bird (in general)". It must be noted that in [Dirr 1908: 165, 219] lˈilǝχːˤu is quoted as 'bird (in general)', although the actual meaning of lˈilǝχːˤu is 'a mythological bird' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 274; Mikailov 1967: 190] (borrowed from Lak liluχːˤi 'bird (in general)').
It is probable that in Proto-Archi the term nocʼ denoted a 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds (a typologically possible lexicological situation).
Note that the Archi word is unjustifiedly labeled as "probably borrowed" in [Chumakina 2009].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] the word čaʁ {чIагъ} is also quoted as a synonym for 'bird (in general)', apparently < Lezgian *čːaqʼʷ(a) 'bird, small bird', although the expected Kryts form should rather be **čaqʼ {чIакъ} (Comrie & Khalilov's error?).
Alyk Kryts:qːuš-1
Authier 2009: 52, 76, 87, 181, 223, 259, etc. Borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141], 'bird' is glossed as ǯiv-ǯiv {джив-джив} - apparently a corrupted spelling of the onomatopoeic term ǯib-ǯib 'chicken' [Meylanova 1984: 57].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 888, 898; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], quoted as šitʼ {шитI}, which is not an error, cf. the same form from [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] below.
Cf. examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999]: "If only a human had wings, he would fly like a bird" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 263]; "The bird ate the grain, but it was eaten itself by the hawk" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 677]; "The birds have flown away" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 218]; "Ali saw a rock, a bird was flying over it" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 391], "The bird is sitting on the tree" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 469]; "Ali fired at the bird that was flying over him" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 649]; "When the bird caught the snake, it ate it up" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 678]. Two first instances demonstrate that šitʼʸ generally denotes 'small/mid-size bird (in general)', but can be extended to the generic meaning 'bird'.
In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 221], only qːuš {къуш} 'bird' (borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird') is quoted as a separate entry. Examples include: "There are a lot of birds in our woods" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 221], "A bird flies with the help of its wings" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 213], "The falcon is a predatory bird" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 217]. However, the word šitʼ / šitʼʸ- {шитI, шитIяр} is attested in examples like "He was snaring birds" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 51], "Morwennol is a pretty bird" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 199], "(Scarecrows) frightened birds on the grain field" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 354], "Babble of birds" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 403].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Dirr 1913: 198, 236. A generic term, borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'.
Distinct from the inherited specific term šitʼʸi 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86] (in [Dirr 1913: 217, 236] quoted as šitʼ).
Gelmets Tsakhur:qːuš-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86. Borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141], 'bird' is glossed with the enigmatic form šikʼʸey {шикIей}.
TKR_NOTES:
It is probable that in Proto-Tsakhur the term šitʼʸ(i) denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds (a typologically possible lexicological situation). Recently the Azerbaijani word guš has been borrowed for generic 'bird', although it should be noted that the old Tsakhur form šitʼʸ(i) seems etymologically obscure, so it could be an old loanword from an unknown source.
Mukhad Rutul:naχčir {нахчир}-1
Dirr 1912: 162, 198; Ibragimov 1978: 53. Oblique stem: naχčir-di-. A borrowed term, because the oblique stem marker -di- is characteristic of loanwords [Alekseev 1994a: 221] (the source is Iranian, see notes on Tabasaran).
Distinct from the inherited šuruk 'sparrow; small bird (in general)' [Dirr 1912: 183], 'sparrow' [Ibragimov 1978: 116], although in [Ibragimov 1978: 282; Makhmudova 2001: 12, 20, 86, 159] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] Mukhad šuruk is glossed as the generic 'bird'.
Ixrek Rutul:šey {шей}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 302; Ibragimov 1978: 204. Polysemy: 'beast (in general) / bird (in general)'. In [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 383], 'bird' is additionally specified as läwši-dɨ šey {лаьвшиды шей}, literally 'flying beast'. Cf. the example: "bird's wing" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 152], "The birds have flown from the tree" [Ibragimov 1978: 204]. Oblique stem: šey-di-. A borrowed term, because the oblique stem marker -di- is characteristic of loanwords [Alekseev 1994a: 221] (the source is Persian, see notes on Tabasaran).
A second word for 'bird' is qːuš {къуш} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 160], but it is probably less frequent - no examples found; borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'.
Distinct from the inherited šuruk 'sparrow' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 305] (which is quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] as a generic term for 'bird').
Luchek Rutul:šey-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86. A Persian loanword, see notes on Tabasaran.
Distinct from the inherited širuk 'young (of animal), nestling; small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86, 219].
RUT_NOTES:
Borch-Khnov dialect: naχčir [Ibragimov 1978: 282] (a Persian loanword, see notes on Tabasaran).
As in some other Lezgian cases, it is likely that in Proto-Rutul the term širuk denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. Recently several foreign words have been borrowed for the generic meaning 'bird'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86. It must be noted that in [Shaumyan 1941: 157], Burshag 'bird' is quoted as (borrowed) naχšir, whereas ǯaqʼʷ is glossed as 'sparrow' in [Suleymanov 2003: 80].
Keren Aghul:
Not attested. Cf. in the Usug subdialect: naχčir 'bird' [Shaumyan 1941: 157].
Distinct from Richa žaqʼʷ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86], although Magometov translates it simply as 'bird' in examples [Magometov 1970: 136].
Gequn Aghul:naχšir-1
Dirr 1907: 136, 181; Shaumyan 1941: 156.
Distinct from inherited ǯaqʼʷ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Dirr 1907: 114, 181].
Fite Aghul:
The generic term is unknown. Cf. ǯaqʼʷ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86].
Aghul (proper):qːuš-1
Suleymanov 2003: 118. A recent borrowing from Azerbaijani guš 'bird', which has superseded the Tpig word naχšir 'bird' [Shaumyan 1941: 156]. The latter is of Iranian origin. Distinct from inherited ǯaqʼʷ 'sparrow' [Suleymanov 2003: 80].
In other subdialects: Tsirkhe naχšir, Duldug naχčir 'bird' [Shaumyan 1941: 156].
AGX_NOTES:
As in some other cases typical of Lezgian languages, it is likely that in Proto-Aghul the term ǯaqʼʷ denoted 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. It acquired the generic meaning 'bird' in Koshan (if Kibrik & Kodzasov's data is correct), while other dialects introduced the Iranian loanword naχčir ~ naχšir for 'bird (in general)' (see notes on Tabasaran).
Northern Tabasaran:
The generic Dyubek term is unknown.
In other subdialects the loanword šeyʔ is used for 'bird': Khanag šeyʔ 'a thing; bird' [Uslar 1979: 981, 1003; Dirr 1905: 220, 240]; according to [Dirr 1905: 218], there is also a more detailed expression for 'bird' in Khanag: čʼeyi šeyʔ, literally 'living/alive šeyʔ'), Khyuryuk šeyʔ {шейъ} 'a thing, creature, œuvre; bird' [Genko 2005: 189]. Another loanword in the Kumi subdialect: naχšˈir {нахшир} 'bird' [Genko 2005: 126].
Distinct from inherited Dyubek ǯˈaqʼ-a 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86], Khanag, Khyuryuk, Kumi ǯaqʼ {жжакь} 'small bird (in general)' [Dirr 1905: 169, 240; Genko 2005: 65].
Southern Tabasaran:
The generic Kondik term is unknown.
In other subdialects only loanwords are attested: Khiv ničχˈir {ничхир}, Tinit naχšˈir {нахшир} 'bird' [Genko 2005: 126, 127]; a second Khiv term is šeyʔ {шейъ} with polysemy: 'a thing, creature, œuvre / bird' [Genko 2005: 189].
Distinct from inherited Kondik, Khiv ǯaqʼʷ {жжакьв} 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Genko 2005: 65].
A different situation in Literary Tabasaran: inherited ǯaqʼʷ {жакьв} 'bird (in general); sparrow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 157], which is opposed to borrowed ničχˈir {ничхир} 'wild bird; wild beast' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244]. Cf. šeyʔ {шейъ} 'thing, object' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].
TAB_NOTES:
As in some other cases typical of Lezgian languages, it is likely that in Proto-Tabasaran the term ǯaqʼʷ denoted a 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds. It acquired the generic meaning 'bird' in Literary Tabasaran (if Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov's gloss is correct), while other dialects introduced the Iranian loanwords for 'bird (in general)'.
The forms naχšir~ ničχir originate from Iranian, cf. Persian naxčiːr 'hunting, the chase; game, wild animal', Tajiki naxčir 'wild animal', etc. The Literary Tabasaran meaning 'wild bird; wild beast' and the Gyune Lezgi meaning ‘game’ (see notes on Lezgi ‘bird’) directly correspond to the Iranian semantics. This term penetrated into some other Lezgian languages with the modified meaning 'bird (in general)'.
The word šeyʔ with polysemy: 'a thing, creature, œuvre; bird' was borrowed from Persian šayʔ 'a thing, something, object' (ultimately from Arabic šey 'a thing, something'). The semantic development 'a thing' → 'animal' can represent an internal Lezgian development. Cf. the polysemy in Ixrek Rutul: šey 'beast (in general) / bird (in general)' and the attested full collocation for 'bird': Northern Tabasaran (Khanag) 'living/alive šeyʔ', Ixrek Rutul (q.v.) 'flying šey'.
Gyune Lezgi:qːuš-1
Uslar 1896: 495, 628. Borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'. Distinct from the inherited Gyune word nükʼ 'sparrow' [Uslar 1896: 516]. Distinct from the Iranism ničχˈir 'game', luwˈan ničχˈir 'game bird' (literally 'ničχir with wing') [Uslar 1896: 516]. For the Iranian origin of ničχˈir see notes on Tabasaran.
The same Azerbaijani loanword in Literary Lezgi: qːuš {къуш} 'bird' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 195; Gadzhiev 1950: 671; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 516]. The second literary expression for 'bird (in general)' is luwan ničχir {луван ничхир} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 254; Gadzhiev 1950: 671], literally 'ničχir with wing', whose original meaning was the narrower 'game bird', see Uslar's data above. Modern literary ničχˈir {ничхир} means 'game bird, wild bird' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 254; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 516], originating from the wider meaning 'game', see Uslar's data above.
Distinct from literary inherited nükʼ {нуькI} 'small bird (in general), sparrow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 255; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 516].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːuš 'bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86]; distinct from the inherited Khlyut word nucʼ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86].
Proto-Lezgian:*nɨсʼʷ1
NCED: 525. Distribution: Most of the attested Lezgian languages demonstrate the lexical opposition between a term for 'small/middle bird (in general)' and various terms for specific kinds of large (predatory) birds. There are no reasons not to project such a system onto the Proto-Lezgian level. Thus, we fill the Proto-Lezgian slot with the generic term for 'small/middle bird'.
Out of several inherited roots for 'small/middle bird', *nɨcʼʷ(a) possesses the best distribution: Archi 'small/middle bird (in general)', Lezgi 'small bird (in general)', also Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad Rutul) nicʼ 'a k. of bird' [Ibragimov 1978: 135]. This root also has a good North Caucasian etymology ('small bird' or 'bird').
Cf. other roots, attested with the meaning 'small bird' in Lezgian: *čːaqʼʷ(a) (Aghul, Tabasaran), for which external North Caucasian comparison suggests the shift 'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird' [NCED: 1105]; *š(ʷ)Vrtʼ / *čʼVˤrtʼ (Tsakhur), apparently with the shift 'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird' [NCED: 343]; *čɨraƛʼːʷ (Rutul), for which the Lezgian comparandum suggests the shift 'nestling, young of birds' > 'small bird' [LEDb: #161]; *čVpːV(?) (Udi), an isolated form [LEDb: #267].
The majority of Lezgian languages have recently borrowed their generic terms for 'bird' from Azerbaijani or Persian.
Replacements: {'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird'} (Aghul, Tabasaran, Tsakhur), {'nestling, young of birds' > 'small bird'} (Rutul).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *nVсʼʷa-.
Gukasyan 1974: 133; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 233; Mobili 2010: 162. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] erroneously quoted as kaš-p-sun {кашпсун}. In [LEDb] this root is quoted as kːašˤ-, but without references. Polysemy: 'to dig (a hole etc.) / to bite / to sting'.
Gukasyan 1974: 133. Polysemy: 'to dig (a hole etc.) / to bite / to sting'. In [Schulze 2001: 289] attested only with the meaning 'to dig' (kašˤ-p-esun). Apparently the same verb is quoted in [Schiefner 1863: 82] as kːačː-p-esun {kać̣-} 'kauen' and in [Dirr 1903: 95 (l. 14)] as kač- {қач-} 'to dig'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kašˤ-p-esun 'to dig (a hole etc.) / to bite / to sting'; in [Gukasyan 1974: 133; Mobili 2010: 162] the reduplicated Nidzh-Vartashen variant kašˤ-kašˤ-p-esun {кашIкашIпесун} is also cited as a synonym. The morpheme -p- is a light verb: 'to say, to do smth. with the mouth; to do smth. (in general)' [Schulze 2005: 565 ff. (3.4.2.2 #15 ff.); Harris 2002: 204 ff.].
Not to be confused with kːacː-pː-esun {кIац́пIесун} 'to cut, split, cut down' [Gukasyan 1974: 141] = kːacː-p-esun {kac̣-} 'zerschneiden, zerstören, vernichten' [Schiefner 1863: 82], 'to kill, destroy, slay' [Schulze 2001: 291].
Distinct from Nidzh-Vartashen kːaram-p-esun 'to gnaw, gnaw round; to nag' [Gukasyan 1974: 140; Mobili 2010: 172] (translated as simply 'to bite' in [Starchevskiy 1891: 486]).
Distinct from the complex verb hˈaˤnčʼ-bo- 'to bite off; to nibble grass, depasture', formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 238].
Initial acʼ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. Alternatively the Common Tsakhur verb can be analyzed as a=cʼakʼʷan- with the prefix a= (for which see [Ibragimov 1990: 123]), thus [LEDb].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 236, 351. Cf. an example: "He will not bite the finger put in his mouth" (proverb referring to a honest person) [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 251b]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 233], the auxiliary verb is quoted with an error.
According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], one other synonym is the verb yitʼ- 'to bite', paradigm: r=itʼ-a-r- [imperf. 4] / y=itʼ-ɨ-r [perf. 4] / y=itʼ [imv. 4] (initial r= is the imperfective exponent; y= is a prefix with general semantics or the fossilized class 1/4 exponent). In the Borch-Khnov dialect, the corresponding verb w=itʼ- means 'to bite', applied to a snake [Ibragimov 1978: 276, 300]. This root is isolated within Lezgian, cf. [NCED: 227].
RUT_NOTES:
The analytic construction sɨs 'incisor / canine tooth' + (h=)aʔ- (/ h=äqʼ-) 'to do' represents the meaning 'bite' in all dialects. See notes on 'tooth'.
Borch-Khnov dialect: gɨčʼ haʔ- {гычI гьыъын} 'to bite' [Ibragimov 1978: 284], literally gɨčʼ + 'to do'. The Rutul noun gɨčʼ is unattested outside this expression, but regularly reflects Proto-Lezgian *gamčʼ 'canine tooth; molar tooth' [NCED: 430].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 159; Suleymanov 2003: 121; Magometov 1970: 229 (sentence 4). In [Shaumyan 1941: 136], the Burshag verb ayki- 'to bite' is quoted, which seems an inaccuracy, see notes on common Aghul.
A complex verb, consisting of the noun qʼacʼ, which means 'a piece' in Koshan [Shaumyan 1941: 186; Magometov 1970: 235 sentences 3] (cf. Magometov's example "The miller gave the fox a piece of bread"; in [Suleymanov 1993: 83], however, qʼacʼ is mentioned as the common Aghul substantive 'bite') plus the verb ʔaykʼi- (Koshan) / ʔikʼa- (Non-Koshan) 'to put in, move into (trans.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 210].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼacʼ apʼ- {кьацI апIуб} 'to bite' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 209], literally qʼacʼ 'a bite; a piece' + apʼ- 'to do'.
A similar construction in the Khiv subdialect, but with a different noun: ʁancʼ apʼ- {гъанцI апIуб} 'to bite' [Genko 2005: 41], literally ʁancʼ 'a bite (e.g., of snake)' + the auxiliary verb ap- 'to do'. Distinct from Khiv class=is- {бисуб} 'to seize; hold; to bite (said of dog)' [Genko 2005: 29].
TAB_NOTES:
The collocation qʼacʼ 'a bite; a piece' + an auxiliary verb can be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'to bite'. The Khiv construction with ʁancʼ 'a bite' is an innovation from the distributive point of view.
The same in Literary Lezgi: kʼˈas- {кIасун} 'to bite' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 212; Gadzhiev 1950: 326; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 516; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 455]. Distinct from literary qʼa- {кьун} 'to hold; to seize; to bite (said of dog)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 207].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔeqʼːɨ-2
NCED: 559. Distribution: First of all, we need to exclude analytic patterns of the shape 'tooth' / 'a piece' / 'a bite' + an auxiliary verb, which are attested in Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran. These look like recent introductions of areal origin.
After that, several verbal roots enter into competition: (1) Udi kašˤ-, isolated root; (2) *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi); (3) *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian [Kryts, Budukh] and Lezgi); (4) the Tsakhur verb, whose morphological analysis is not entirely clear. From the distributional point of view, all of them are equivalent candidates. We choose *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi, lost in the rest of Lezgian languages), since it actually stems from a good candidate for the status of the Proto-North Caucasian verb for 'to bite' [NCED: 559].
If so, the Udi polysemy kašˤ- 'to bite / to dig' suggests an earlier shift 'to dig' > 'to bite', or else both synchronic meanings originate from *'to break' (i.e. 'to break' > 'to dig'). Pace [LEDb: #11], the Udi root has plain k-, not tense kː-, therefore, comparison with Proto-Lezgian *kʼosʷɨ- should be rejected.
The root *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian, Lezgi) is an inner Samur introduction for 'to bite', although its semantic origin is unknown, since it lacks any cognates outside South Lezgian and Lezgi. Formally *kʼosʷɨ- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian verb for 'to bite'. Cf. also the etymologically obscure Kryts form kʼɨp- 'to bite', which serves as the perfective stem in the suppletive paradigm.
Replacements: {'to dig' > 'to bite' (?)} (Udi), {'to do a tooth' > 'to bite'} (Rutul), {'to put a piece in' > 'to bite'} (Aghul), {'to put a bite' > 'to bite'} (Northern Tabasaran), {'to do a bite' > 'to bite'} (Southern Tabasaran).
Gukasyan 1974: 172; Fähnrich 1999: 23; Dirr 1903: 2; Schiefner 1863: 104; Starchevskiy 1891: 495. In [Fähnrich 1999] and [Starchevskiy 1891] quoted as maˤyn.
UDI_NOTES:
The suffixal -n is not clear; in [Schulze 2001: 298] and [Schulze 2005: 131 (3.2.2.3 #5)] this is treated as a genitive exponent, that is, the underlying Proto-Udi stem should be substantival with the meaning 'blackness' (*'of blackness' > 'black'). It is not obvious, however, that all Udi nouns with the suffix -n- must be analyzed as old qualifying genitive forms.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 203, 388; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 673; Mikailov 1967: 175; Dirr 1908: 134, 226. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 673] there is also a corrupted variant beːχe-du-class. Regular participle from the stative verb beχːˤˈe 'to be black' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 202].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: kʼerˈi 'black' [Uslar 1979: 799, 1010; Dirr 1905: 190, 246]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼerˈi {кIери} 'black' [Genko 2005: 112].
The same in other subdialects:Khiv kʼarˈu {кIару}, Tinit kʼarˈi {кIари} 'black' [Genko 2005: 111]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: kʼarˈu {кIару} 'black' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 213].
The same in Literary Lezgi: čʼulˈaw {чIулав} 'black' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 379; Gadzhiev 1950: 929; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 516].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čʼlaw 'black' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Proto-Lezgian:*laχːˤV- ~ *loχːˤV-2
NCED: 748. Distribution: Four roots enter into competition here. Out of these, *laχːˤV- ~ *loχːˤV- seems to be the best candidate from the distributive point of view. It has been retained as the basic root for 'black' in Archi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Rutul, on the other, but got lost in other languages. Its only external comparandum is the basic Lak term for 'black' [NCED: 748].
The second candidate is *kʼarɨ-, attested with the meaning 'black' in Tsakhur, Aghul and Tabasaran. This was lost as a separate word in the rest of Lezgian languages, but survived in the compound *kʼarV-šːim 'charcoal', literally 'X pebbles' in Aghul, Rutul, Kryts, Budukh [NCED: 719]. External North Caucasian comparison could point, however, to the original meaning 'charcoal' for this root (cf. Proto-Nakh 'charcoal'), thus the Lezgian compound *kʼarV-šːim might actually mean 'charcoal pebbles' rather than the more trivial 'black pebbles'. If so, one must assume the shift 'charcoal' > 'black' that occurred independently in Tsakhur and Aghul-Tabasaran.
Two residual roots, attested with the generic meaning, should be excluded due to their distribution. The root *mičʼ[ä]- means 'black' in Udi, but 'dark' in other Lezgian languages including Archi, thus the Proto-Lezgian semantic reconstruction 'dark' is very probable; external North Caucasian comparison, however, is not unambiguous, because the Khinalug cognate of this Lezgian root means 'black' (further to Nakh 'yellow, orange', Avar 'dark grey, yellow', Lak 'blind') [NCED: 819].
The fourth root is *čʼulV (~ -o-) which denotes 'black' in Lezgi. This got lost in other Lezgian languages except for Aghul, where it survived in the expression for 'raspberry', literally 'dark/black berry' [NCED: 556]. Actually Lezgian *čʼulV possesses good North Caucasian (strictly speaking East Caucasian) comparanda with the meaning 'black' (Proto-Nakh, Proto-Avar-Andic), but it is hard to suppose that *čʼulV survived with its original meaning 'black' only in Lezgi; we should assume the meaning 'a k. of dark color' for Proto-Lezgian *čʼulV and the late development 'a k. of dark color' > 'black' in modern Lezgi.
Replacements: {'dark' > 'black'} (Udi), {'a k. of dark color' > 'black'} (Lezgi), {'charcoal' > 'black'} (Tsakhur, Aghul, Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, right up to the class prefix fusion in Archi.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be black'.
Following [NCED: 497, 879], we treat Rutul e-bir ~ e-bɨr as a compound of two old roots, where the second root acquired the final -r under the influence of the common plural exponent -b-Vr.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: i-fːˈi ~ ye-fːi 'blood' [Uslar 1979: 738, 996; Dirr 1905: 179, 232]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: i-fːˈi {иффи} 'blood' [Genko 2005: 77].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: i-fˈi {ифи} 'blood' [Genko 2005: 77]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: i-fˈi {ифи} [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 180].
TAB_NOTES:
Following [NCED: 497, 1064], we treat Tabasaran i-fːi ~ i-wi as a compound of two old roots.
The same in Literary Lezgi: i-wˈi {иви} 'blood' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 132; Gadzhiev 1950: 319; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 516].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut e-wˈi 'blood' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 48].
Following [NCED: 497, 1064], we treat Lezgi e-wi as a compound of two old roots.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔäʔ3
NCED: 496. Distribution: A difficult case, because formal internal reconstruction contradicts external data. There are two main roots for 'blood' in Lezgian languages: *pːiy (~ pʼ-) [NCED: 879] and *ʔäʔ [NCED: 496].
The plain root *pːiy is attested in the meaning 'blood' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi. In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy 'blood' is observed. Finally, in East Lezgian we see the compound *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy 'blood' (Tabasaran, Lezgi) and the plain *ʔäʔ 'blood' (Aghul). The root *ɬːʷiy is unattested outside this compound, but its external North Caucasian comparanda clearly point to the meaning 'vein' [NCED: 1064]. Formal distribution suggests that the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood' should have been *pːiy, retained in both of the outliers (Udi and Archi), whereas in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian this was superseded with *ʔäʔ, which was normally used as an element of compounds. The problem of this solution is that the status of *pːiy in the Proto-West Lezgian compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy appears to be unclear.
Both discussed roots - *pːiy and *ʔäʔ - possess external East Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'blood' [NCED: 496, 879], but it is actually *ʔäʔ which reflects the main candidate for the status of at least the Proto-East Caucasian term for 'blood', whereas the original meaning of *pːiy seems to have been 'blood vessel'. If *ʔäʔ is to be posited as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood', we must assume that the root *pːiy independently shifted from 'blood vessel' > 'blood' in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi). On the other hand, both of the attested compounds for 'blood', *ʔäʔ-*pːiy (West Lezgian) and *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy (East Lezgian), acquire the identical structure 'blood + vein'.
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the substantive 'blood' is transparently derived from the adjective *ʔirɨ- (~ ʔˤ-) 'red' q.v. [NCED: 519].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 181. Distinct from a more specific term mäsir 'tubular bone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 181], the word čanaq {чанахъ} is incorrectly quoted as a second term for 'bone', although in reality čanaq means 'hip bone' [Meylanova 1984: 151].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: barkʼʷ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39]. Distinct from the more specific term cʼom 'tubular bone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yirkː 'bone' [Uslar 1979: 753, 996; Dirr 1905: 180, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yirkː {йиркк} 'bone' [Genko 2005: 80].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: kʼurˈab {кIураб} 'bone' [Genko 2005: 113]. In Literary Tabasaran both terms are present: yirkː {йиркк} 'bone' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185] and kʼurˈab {кIураб} 'bone' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 214].
TAB_NOTES:
External comparison suggests that Northern yirkː 'bone' is an archaism.
The same in Literary Lezgi: kʼarˈab {кIараб} 'bone' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 212; Gadzhiev 1950: 312; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 516].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kʼrab 'bone' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].
Proto-Lezgian:*yirƛʼː1
NCED: 528. Distribution: Two complementarily distributed roots for 'bone' enter into competition in this criss-crossing situation. The first one is *yirƛʼː [NCED: 528], attested in Udi and Caucasian Albanian on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects (namely Aghul, Northern Tabasaran) on the other. The second one is *ƛʼorapː [NCED: 779], common in Nuclear Lezgian: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Rutul, Southern Tabasaran, Lezgi.
Since the Samur territory generally demonstrates a high number of post-split, contact-induced lexical isoglosses between Nuclear Lezgian lects, the distribution seems to speak in favor of *yirƛʼː as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'bone'. External North Caucasian comparison clearly supports such a solution. On the contrary, *ƛʼorapː in the meaning 'bone' looks like an inner Nuclear Lezgian introduction, which further spread across the Samur territory as an areal isogloss (cf. especially the opposition *yirƛʼː / *ƛʼorapː between two Tabasaran dialectal clusters). External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ƛʼorapː was 'hand bone' [NCED: 779] (actually *ƛʼora-pː with the fossilized plural suffix, used for body parts).
In Archi, *yirƛʼː 'bone' was superseded with *läk, whose original meaning was probably 'leg bone' [NCED: 755]: cf. the meaning 'knee' in Caucasian Albanian (see notes on 'knee') and 'foot, leg' in Tabasaran-Aghul (see notes on 'foot'). In Tsakhur, th meaning 'bone' is expressed by *pːalkʼʷ, originating from the meaning 'a k. of bone' [NCED: 310] (cf. its reflexes in other Lezgian languages: 'cheek-bone', 'spine', 'rib').
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22] the word döš is also quoted for 'breast, chest' (the only term in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], as a synonym of šˤaqː in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]); it is borrowed from Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest'.
Distinct from cːicːikː {цIицIикI} 'female breast, nipple' [Gukasyan 1974: 234; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23; Mobili 2010: 253]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217], 'female breast' is translated as äq {аьхъ}, which is both an incorrect translation (in fact, a Vartashen form aqˤ for 'human breast') and incorrect spelling for {аъхъ}.
Gukasyan 1974: 57; Mobili 2010: 114; Fähnrich 1999: 7. Polysemy: 'human breast, chest / slope (of mountain)'. In [Schulze 2001: 271; Schiefner 1863: 97] and [Dirr 1903: 2] only döš 'breast' is quoted (< Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest').
Distinct from cːicːikː 'female breast' [Fähnrich 1999: 12].
UDI_NOTES:
Both Nidzh šˤaqː and Vartashen aqˤ seem secondary with the common semantic shift 'mountain slope' > 'breast'. Vartashen aqˤ possesses Lezgian comparanda, whereas Nidzh šˤaqː is probably isolated.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:χˈatum3
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 332, 356; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217; Mikailov 1967: 200; Dirr 1908: 188, 206. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217], there is also a word ikʼ {икI}, quoted as a synonym for χˈatum - apparently a corrupted spelling for ikʼʷ {икIв} 'heart' q.v.
Distinct from mam 'female breast, nipple, baby's dummy' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 277] (incorrectly glossed in [Chumakina et al. 2007] as 'breast, nipple').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22. Not found in [Meylanova 1984].
According to [Meylanova 1984: 55, 210], the word for 'breast (in general, both male and female)' is duš {душ} (polysemy: 'human breast, chest / slope (of mountain), plateau'). But in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23] duš is quoted only for 'female breast'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest'.
Distinct from the inherited mɨχɨ 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].
TKR_NOTES:
In all the dialects the inherited term for 'breast (in general)' mɨχɨ ~ muχu was narrowed to the meaning 'female breast', having been superseded by the loanword koksi ~ koksɨ, borrowed from Azerbaijani köks 'breast, chest'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Suleymanov 2003: 136; Shaumyan 1941: 152. It must be noted that in [Magometov 1970: 23] the Burshag word for 'breast' is transcribed as muχːur - an obvious error. The same term in the Arsug subdialect: muχur 'breast' [Shaumyan 1941: 152].
Distinct from Burshag bizi 'female breast, nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].
Suleymanov 2003: 136; Shaumyan 1941: 152; Magometov 1970: 195 strophe 6. According to Magometov's example, applied to both men and women. No specific Tpig terms for 'female breast' have been found in [Suleymanov 2003].
The same in Tsirkhe and Duldug subdialects: muχur 'breast' [Shaumyan 1941: 152].
AGX_NOTES:
The common Aghul term bizi 'female breast, nipple' (see also the additional forms in [Shaumyan 1941: 154]) is of unknown origin; cf. [NCED: 305] with hypothetical West Caucasian comparanda.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22. Distinct from the nursery word nenˈey 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: muχˈur 'breast' [Uslar 1979: 864, 992; Dirr 1905: 197, 227], nanˈay with polysemy: 'female breast, nipple / udder / pupil of the eye' [Uslar 1979: 868, 992; Dirr 1905: 197, 227]. The same in other subdialects:Khyuryuk, Kumi muχˈur {мухур} 'breast' [Genko 2005: 123], Khyuryuk nanˈay {нанай} with polysemy: 'female breast, nipple / pupil of the eye' [Genko 2005: 125].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22. Distinct from the nursery word nanˈa 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: muχˈur {мухур} 'breast', nana {нана} 'female breast, nipple' [Genko 2005: 123, 125]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: muχˈur {мухур} 'breast', nanˈa {нана} 'female breast, nipple' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 235, 241] (distinct, however, from ninˈi {нини} 'pupil of the eye' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244]).
Uslar 1896: 578, 609. Distinct from Gyune mam 'female breast, teat; udder' [Uslar 1896: 501, 609].
The same in Literary Lezgi: χur {хур} 'breast' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 349; Gadzhiev 1950: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 512, 516]. Distinct from literary mam 'female breast, teat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 230; Gadzhiev 1950: 154].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut χɨr 'breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22]. Distinct from Khlyut mam 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].
Proto-Lezgian:*moχor4
NCED: 829. Distribution: This stem is retained in the meaning 'breast' in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, except for Tsakhur, where the basic term for 'breast' is an Azerbaijani loanword, whereas *moχor narrowed to 'female breast'. In Archi *moχor shifted to 'brisket' ('breast' > 'brisket' is natural, but not vice versa), having been superseded with the etymologically obscure form χˈatum. No traces of the root *moχor in Udi. External North Caucasian comparison confirms *moχor as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'breast (in general)'.
In two Udi dialects, 'breast' is expressed by forms with synchronic polysemy: 'breast / mountain slope', apparently with the development 'mountain slope' > 'breast'. At least for the Vartashen Udi form *ʔawχː(a), both internal and external comparison suggest the original meaning 'slope' [NCED: 244] (the Nidzh Udi term is etymologically isolated). It should be noted, however, that theoretically both directions of the semantic shift between 'breast' and 'slope' are possible.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 66. Quoted as bokː- 'to burn (tr.)' in [Gukasyan 1974: 283] and as bokː-os-b-esun 'to set fire to' in [Gukasyan 1974: 88] and [Mobili 2010: 68].
Common Udi *bokː-b-esun, a transitive/causative from Nidzh-Vartashen bokː-(e)sun 'to burn (intr.)' [Gukasyan 1974: 88; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 66; Mobili 2010: 68; Fähnrich 1999: 10; Schulze 2001: 259], formed with the light verb -b- 'to do' [Schulze 2005: 569 ff. (3.4.2.2 #22 ff.)].
The root bokː- is synchronically unsegmentable; as in many other cases with Udi roots in b-, Lezgian cognates suggest that b- is a petrified prefix (a former class exponent, see [Harris 2002: 72 ff., 215 ff.] w. lit. and discussion), thus b=okː-.
Caucasian Albanian: The transitive verb is unattested. Cf. bokʼ-okʼ-esun 'to burn (intr.)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11]; morphologically can be analyzed as bokʼ-o-kʼ-esun with the light verb -kʼ- as, e.g., in bas-kʼ- 'to lie, sleep' q.v. (the second -o- is unclear in this case) or as partially reduplicated bokʼ-okʼ- (cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: II-78]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 95; Dirr 1913: 146. It should be noted that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 94, 95], a labile verb gʸ=oxːan / gʸ=oxːɨn ' burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' is postulated, which seems an inaccuracy; see notes on Common Tsakhur.
The stem represents a regular causative formation from gʸ=oxːʷan- 'to burn (intrans.)', formed with the verb (h=)aʔ- 'to do' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 58 f.; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 129].
Note that xʷ is still retained in some forms in Mishlesh and Literary Tsakhur, but it has been totally superseded by x in Mikik under the influence of numerous forms with the regular delabialization oxʷ > ox (the Gelmets data are unknown).
Initial gʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Ibragimov 1978: 121; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 66. Causative from ux- 'to burn (intrans.)' [Dirr 1912: 176; Ibragimov 1978: 120], modified with the additional prefix h=. It should be noted that in [Makhmudova 2001: 252] this word is quoted as h=uxʷ- {гьудхьвас} (with the labialized -xʷ- - an archaism) and treated as a labile verb 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)'.
Distinct from the causative l=ikʼʷ-a aʔ- 'to set fire to' [Dirr 1912: 157; Ibragimov 1978: 120] from l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire' [Ibragimov 1978: 120; Makhmudova 2001: 159, 253].
Distinct from l=ikʼʷ-ä haʔ- 'to set fire to' (with the example: "They lit a fire") [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180] from l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180].
Distinct from k=irš-e haʔ- [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144], which is translated by Dzhamalov & Semedov as 'to burn (trans.)', but the only example "He has lit a splinter" points to the meaning 'to set fire to smth.'. Causative from k=irš-, which is translated in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144] as 'to burn (intrans.)' (examples: "The firewood burns", "The lamp is lit"), but such a glossing also seems an inaccuracy.
In [Ibragimov 1978: 224], both Ixrek forms, h=ux- and k=irš-, are quoted as synonyms for 'to catch fire'; they are semantic counterparts of Mukhad l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 95, 96. Polysemy: 'to burn (trans.) / to set fire to'. Causative from l=ikʼʷ- 'to burn (intrans.); to catch fire' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 94, 95].
RUT_NOTES:
In all the dialects the equivalents of the meaning 'to burn (trans.)' represent regular causative formations from different verbs for 'to burn (intrans.)', formed with the verb (h=)aʔ- (/ h=äqʼ-) 'to do'. Luchek l=ikʼʷ- in the generic meaning 'to burn (intrans.)' is an innovation; external Lezgian comparison proves that the primary meaning of this root was 'to catch fire' as in Mukhad and Ixrek.
Initial h=, l= and k= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 95; Suleymanov 2003: 159. Labile verb 'to burn (intrans.) / to burn (trans.)'. Derived from the verb uršː-a- 'to boil (intrans., trans.)' [Magometov 1970: 18, 23]; it should be noted, however, that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 137] and once in [Magometov 1970: 57] the verb 'to boil' is transcribed as urš-a- with lax, not tense š. Etymologically corresponds to Keren (Richa) ruxʸ-a- 'to boil', Proper Aghul (Tsirkhe) urxː-e- 'to boil' (with the tense xː!), etc. [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 137; Magometov 1970: 23, 57; NCED: 1030].
Distinct from k=eyx-i- 'to set fire to' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 96].
Suleymanov 2003: 159; Shaumyan 1941: 145. It should be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 160], the archaic Tpig form ugʷ-a- is also quoted as a variant of more common ug-a-.
AGX_NOTES:
Internal reconstruction as well as external comparison suggest that Koshan uršː-ana- 'to burn' is an innovation.
The labialization of gʷ in ugʷ-a- is almost eliminated in dialects due to the recent areal process of dissimilative delabialization uCʷ > uC [Magometov 1970: 26].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ug-ˈ {ургуб} 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' [Genko 2005: 154]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ug-ˈ {убгуб} 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 290].
The same in Literary Lezgi: kːu- [imperf.] / kːa- [perf.] / kːu-g [imv.]{кун, ккун} 'to burn (trans., intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 166; Gadzhiev 1950: 199; Gaydarov et al. 2009: 181; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 516; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 368].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔokːʷɨ-1
NCED: 860. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning in all the languages, except for some Nuclear Lezgian lects.
In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), this root was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr-, whose original meaning is 'to get heated' [NCED: 1036]. Subsequently in Luchek Rutul, it was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔikʼʷa-, whose original meaning is 'to catch fire' [NCED: 632]. Koshan Aghul, 'to burn (intrans./trans.)' is a suffixal derivation from the verb *ʔVrɬːan- 'to boil (intrans./trans.)' [NCED: 1030].
Gukasyan 1974: 176; Fähnrich 1999: 24; Schiefner 1863: 104; Starchevskiy 1891: 504. According to [Fähnrich 1999], polysemy: 'fingernail / claw' (in [Fähnrich 1999: 24] a phonetical variant muq is also quoted, apparently, in error). Not to be confused with the word miχ, glossed in [Schiefner 1863: 104] as 'Nagel', which apparently means 'nail, peg', as follows from the Persian gloss mex 'nail, peg', quoted by Schiefner as a source of borrowing.
Common Udi *muχ; it is claimed in [Schulze 2001: 299a] that Udi muχ was borrowed from Persian mex 'nail', which cannot be true, because Persian mex is a terminus technicus with the meaning 'nail, peg', not 'fingernail' (the Persian term was adapted as Vartashen miχ 'nail, peg').
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270, 370; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 209; Mikailov 1967: 190. Paradigm: ƛʼontʼˈol [abs.] / ƛʼantʼl-ˈa [erg.]. In [Dirr 1908: 201, 215] a dissimilated form ƛʼontʼor is quoted. Polysemy: 'fingernail / toenail'.
As proposed in [NCED: 210, 1002], this is a compound: ƛʼon-tʼˈol, the second part of which (-tʼˈol) can be identified with Lezgian *tʼɨl (~ -o-) 'finger'. In turn, the first element ƛʼon- is analyzed in [NCED: 210] as ƛʼo-n- from the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- 'to slaughter', i.e. 'nail' as '[the part of the] finger which is being cut'. The latter solution is unlikely on two points. First, both the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- and its Proto-Lezgian ancestor *ʔirƛʼːʷär- mean 'to slaughter (an animal)', rather than the generic 'to cut, cut off'. Next, the semantic derivation 'to cut off' > 'fingernail' seems typologically problematic.
Alternatively analyzed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 301] as ƛʼontʼ-ˈol with a root ƛʼontʼ and the relatively common nominal suffix -ol.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 209. Polysemy: 'fingernail / claw / hoof'. The final -ek is a diminutive suffix.
Alyk Kryts:dirnaχ-1
G. Authier, pers. com. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dɨrnag 'fingernail, claw, hoof'. In [Authier 2009: 25] Alyk 'fingernail' is quoted as meχ as opposed to the Persian loanword miχ 'nail, peg', but this is a confusion (in the discovered textual example the real meaning of meχ is 'nail, peg' [Authier 2009: 231], not 'fingernail').
Budukh:dɨrnaʁ {дырнагъ}-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 209] erroneously quoted as dɨrmaʁ {дырмагъ}. Polysemy: 'fingernail / hoof'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dɨrnag 'fingernail, claw, hoof'. There are no terms for 'fingernail' or 'claw' in [Meylanova 1984].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33; Dirr 1907: 127, 178; Shaumyan 1941: 193. Ergative form: kerk-u. As proposed in [NCED: 690], labialized kʷ in the absolutive form is secondary, due to the influence of the ergative kerk-u.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: šːaw with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Uslar 1979: 984, 999; Dirr 1905: 220, 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: šːaw {шшав} 'nail' [Genko 2005: 192].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv šib {шиб}, Turag šab {шаб} with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Genko 2005: 188, 190]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: šib {шиб} with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].
TAB_NOTES:
Note the retention of tense fricative šː in the Northern subdialects. The Kondik oblique stem šibu- (not **ši̥bu-) also points to an old tense consonant, although such paradigms are expected to get levelled after the monosyllabic absolutive form.
The same in Literary Lezgi: kek [abs.] / kʸkː-e- [obl.] {кек} with polysemy: 'nail / hoof / furniture leg' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 154; Gadzhiev 1950: 426; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kek [abs.] / kʸk-e- [obl.] with polysemy: 'nail / hoof' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33].
Proto-Lezgian:*mːäɬː1
NCED: 814 (as *ɬːämː). Distribution: This root is retained in the generic meaning '(finger)nail' in Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Tabasaran. External North Caucasian comparison confirms such a semantic reconstruction for *mːäɬː [NCED: 814].
Some local substitutions are observed in individual languages. In Archi the obscure form ʼontʼˈol is attested. In Kryts, the old root is superseded with *mičʼ 'hoof' [NCED: 819]. In Aghul and Lezgi, 'nail' is denoted by *kerk, whose original meaning is not clear and general antiquity is dubious [NCED: 689] (as proved by the Tabasaran data, *kerk is not the Proto-East Lezgian root for 'nail', but a late areal innovation).
Superseded with an Azerbaijani loanword in some Nuclear Lezgian lects.
Replacements: {'hoof' > 'nail'} (Kryts).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to the metathesis *mːäɬː > *ɬːämː in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *mːiɬːV-.
Common Udi *aso(y), with a laryngeal prothesis in Vartashen (note, however, that normally in such cases the laryngeal prothesis is characteristic of the Nidzh dialect, not the Vartashen one). The suffixal -y of the Nidzh form is explained in [Schulze 2001: 282] as a result of analogy with the Nidzh word-formative suffix -oy, but actually the -y suffix is observed in some Nuclear Lezgic forms (namely Rutul), thus we rather deal with the archaic formation, not synchronic derivation (in such a case Vartashen haso can be interpreted as the occasiaonl loss of the final glide).
Caucasian Albanian: alʸeg 'cloud; mist, fog' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5]. Etymologically unrelated to the Udi term.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205. Polysemy: 'sheep-flock / cloud'. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two terms for 'cloud' are quoted: kʼäbäl and bɨlɨt; difference is unclear. It must be noted that kʼäbäl is a metaphoric expression with the main meaning 'sheep-flock' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 63], whereas bɨlɨt is borrowed from Azerbaijani bulut 'cloud'.
Distinct from ǯif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 60] three terms - kʼabal (sic!), bɨlɨt and ǯif - are quoted as synonyms for 'cloud', whereas 'fog' is translated as zov, which in fact means 'sky' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 197].
Authier 2009: 49. For the Alyk dialect two words are translated as 'cloud' by Authier, but without specifications: metaphoric kʼapʼal with polysemy: '(small) flock / cloud' [Authier 2009: 49] and ǯif with polysemy: 'cloud / fog' [Authier 2009: 39, 280, 386]. The latter is a retention.
Budukh:bulut {булут}-1
Meylanova 1984: 31, 226; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 60. According to [Meylanova 1984], with polysemy: 'cloud / fog'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani bulut 'cloud'.
Distinct from inherited ǯuf {джуф}, glossed as 'black cloud; fog' in [Meylanova 1984: 59] and as 'fog' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].
Ibragimov 1990: 38; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 125. Missing from [Kibrik et al. 1999]. Polysemy: 'cloud / rheumatism'.
Another attested word is bulut {булут} 'cloud', borrowed from Azerbaijani bulut 'cloud' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 94]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 60], erroneously quoted as buput {бупут}.
Distinct from čamra 'fog' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 871] (in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 393], quoted as čaˤmra).
Despite the wide distribution of Rutul *kːɨbɨl, it is not entirely certain that this was the basic or at least the only term for 'cloud'. Another appropriate candidate is reflected as Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad) asɨy 'cloud' [Ibragimov 1978: 136], Ixrek äsʷäy 'cloud' (see above), Shinaz asay 'cloud' [Dirr 1912: 120, 196] (final -Vy may be a frequent nominal suffix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 65]). Perhaps *kːɨbɨl possessed the generic meaning 'fog / rheumatism', whereas *asʷVy meant properly 'cloud'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205. For the Fite dialect two words are quoted as synonyms for 'cloud' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205]: qːiri and amsar; the latter is also attested in [Tarlanov 1994: 240], but without dialectal provenance.
Distinct from dif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].
Aghul (proper):qːiri-1
Suleymanov 2003: 117; Shaumyan 1941: 188. The same in the Tsirkhe subdialect: qːiri 'cloud' [Shaumyan 1941: 188].
Distinct from inherited Tpig dif 'fog' [Suleymanov 2003: 77].
AGX_NOTES:
The widespread Aghul term qːiri was borrowed from some neighboring languages of the Dargi group (cf. Chirag qːiri 'cloud') or, rather, both words represent a common loanword of unknown origin. This means that Fite amsar (historically ams-ar with the fossilized plural suffix) is the only candidate for the Proto-Aghul term for 'cloud'.
Differently in the Khanag subdialect: difː with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud / foam' [Uslar 1979: 669, 999], opposed to ams 'fog' [Uslar 1979: 584, 1008]. Both Khanag words difː and ams are glossed as 'fog' in [Dirr 1905: 156, 164, 245].
Two words for 'cloud' are also quoted for the Khyuryuk subdialect: dif {диф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud / foam' [Genko 2005: 61] and ams {амс} 'cloud' [Genko 2005: 18] (semantic nuances are unknown).
Two words for 'cloud' are quoted for the Khiv subdialect: ǯif {жжиф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud' [Genko 2005: 68] and ams {амс} 'cloud' [Genko 2005: 18] (semantic nuances are unknown; the latter form is not explicitly marked as Khiv due to erroneous omission of the plus sign).
The corresponding Literary Tabasaran terms are better documented: dif {диф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149]; distinct from literary ams 'rain cloud' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 57]. According to [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149, 305a], in Literary Tabasaran 'fog' is expressed as ǯilˈin dif, literally 'earth's cloud'.
TAB_NOTES:
The distribution formally suggests that difː ~ ǯif was the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'cloud', whereas ams meant 'fog'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: cːif [abs.] / cʸf-ˈedi- [obl.] {циф} 'cloud' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358; Gadzhiev 1950: 434; Haspelmath 1993: 483, 517]. According to [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358], in Literary Lezgi 'fog' is expressed as čːilin cːif, literally 'earth's cloud'. Distinct from kpːul ‘rheumatism’ [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 163].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut cːif with polysemy: 'cloud / fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205] (regular paradigm).
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔamsː1
NCED: 243. Distribution: A rather complicated criss-crossed situation with several roots entering into competition.
First, we must rule out the root *kʼapʼal, which shifted from its original meaning 'group, heap, sheep-flock' > 'cloud' in Kryts [NCED: 448].
Second, we may exclude the root *kːomːol, which means 'cloud, fog, rheumatism' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and simply 'rheumatism' in Lezgi. This root has a fairly modest distribution in the meaning 'cloud' and can hardly reflect the Proto-Lezgian basic term. Its Proto-Lezgian or at least Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning can be either 'rheumatism' (if the shift 'rheumatism' > 'cloud, fog' is possible) or rather 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud'. In this case, the shift 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'rheumatism' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul-Lezgi isogloss of areal origin, or the polysemy 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather / rheumatism' existed already on the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian level. Additionally, the retention of the root *ʔamsː with the meaning 'cloud' in some Rutul dialects may indicate that the semantic development *kːomːol 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul process after the split of Proto-West Lezgian. External North Caucasian comparison also proves that the original meaning of Lezgian *kːomːol was 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' [NCED: 737].
The real choice consists of two Proto-Lezgian roots: *ʔamsː and *tːiɬːʷ, which are to be distributed among two specific meanings: 'cloud' and 'fog'.
On formal grounds, the stem *ʔamsː [NCED: 243] has a better chance to represent the Proto-Lezgian term for 'cloud'. It is retained as 'cloud' in Udi, on the one hand, and in Rutul and Aghul, on the other. The root *tːiɬːʷ [NCED: 400], whose Proto-Lezgian meaning in this case must have been 'fog', is retained as 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and in Aghul. In Lezgi, *tːiɬːʷ expanded to 'cloud', having acquired polysemy 'fog / cloud' (whereas the old root *ʔamsː got lost). There are two difficulties with such a scenario. First, *tːiɬːʷ developed into 'cloud' ('fog' > cloud') in Archi. Next, both roots swapped their meanings in Proto-Tabasaran, where *ʔamsː probably meant 'fog' and *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'; it should be noted, however, that the Proto-Tabasaran semantic reconstruction is not very certain.
The second scenario is that *ʔamsː meant 'fog' in Proto-Lezgian, whereas *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'. This implies that *tːiɬːʷ has been retained as 'cloud' in Archi and probably Proto-Tabasaran, but independently underwent the shift 'cloud' > 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Aghul. In its turn, *ʔamsː 'fog' only retained its meaning in Proto-Tabasaran, but independently shifted from 'fog' > 'cloud' in Udi, Rutul and Aghul. It should be noted that both roots swapped their meanings in Aghul.
The first scenario is much more economical; thus, we follow the formal distribution and reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *ʔamsː 'cloud' and Proto-Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ 'fog'. The problem is that external North Caucasian comparison suggests that it should be *tːiɬːʷ that denoted 'cloud' in Proto-Lezgian. In any case, we must note that, due to natural reasons, both meanings, 'cloud' and 'fog', are frequently interchangeable in mountainous regions.
An additional term for 'cloud' is the etymologically obscure Caucasian Albanian form alʸeg. It is proposed in [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5] that alʸeg originates from Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ, but the assumed sound shifts (not discussed by Gippert and Schulze) seem strange and irregular.
'Cloud' is expressed by Azerbaijani or Dargi loanwords in Budukh and Aghul.
Replacements: {'fog' > 'cloud'}, {'cloud' > 'fog'}, {'group, heap, sheep-flock' > 'cloud'} (Kryts), {'a k. of precipitation or wet weather; rheumatism' > 'cloud'} (Tsakhur, Rutul).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the laryngeal prothesis in Vartashen Udi.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is not reconstructible. Udi and Rutul reflect the suffixed variant *ʔamsːV-y.
Fähnrich 1999: 12; Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902 (Mt. 10.42 "a cup of cold (čaχ) water to drink"). Polysemy: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.), frost / ice'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *čaχ 'cold (n.); cold (adj.); ice'. In [Gukasyan 1974: 236; Mobili 2010: 80; Schiefner 1863: 87] and [Schulze 2001: 266], however, Nidzh-Vartashen čaχ is inaccurately glossed only as a substantive 'cold, frost; ice' (thus polysemy 'cold, frost / ice / cold (adj.)'); there is no equivalent for English 'cold (adj.)' in these dictionaries. Cf. also the common Udi substantive mi 'cold, frost' [Gukasyan 1974: 174; Schiefner 1863: 104; Fähnrich 1999: 23; Schulze 2001: 299].
Caucasian Albanian: mii [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30] ("a cup of cold (mii) water"). Apparently [miʔi].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 335, 387; Mikailov 1967: 200; Dirr 1908: 189, 225. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686] a corrupted form χˤe-du-class is quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb χˤe 'to be cold' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 335]; widely applicable.
Distinct from ˈoˤrču-tːu-class, which is quoted in [Dirr 1908: 172, 225] with the translation 'cold (adj.)' ("the cold water"). A more correct translation should be rather 'having gotten cold', a regular participle from the verb ˈoˤrča- 'to get cold' [Chumakina et al. 2007], Kibrik et al. 1977b: 291].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Participle from the verb s=aʁa- 'to get cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 97]. Initial s= is the preverb s-/c- with general semantics [Saadiev 1994: 424].
Meylanova 1984: 122, 249; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Polysemy: 'cold / frozen, congealed'. Participle from the verb s=aʁa- 'to become cold; to feel cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 97]. Initial s= is a prefix with general semantics [Alekseev 1994: 271 f.].
Distinct from ʕatχa-lu {гIатхалу} 'cold (of weather)', a participle from ʕatχa 'to become cold (of weather), to catch cold (of human)' [Meylanova 1984: 46].
Dirr 1912: 161; Makhmudova 2001: 93, 181, 184; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Applied both to objects and weather. The assimilated variant with -u- comes from [Dirr 1912].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Shaumyan 1941: 160. The same in the Khudig subdialect: mikʼ-le-d 'cold' [Shaumyan 1941: 160].
Derived from the substantive, attested as Burshag mekʼ (oblique mikʼ-la-) 'cold, frost' [Shaumyan 1941: 151].
It should be noted, however, that in [Suleymanov 2003: 144], 'cold' is quoted as urʁa-d {ургъад} and urʢa-d ~ urʕa-d {ургIад} (apparently urʢa-d), which represent forms of the Arsug or Khudig subdialect, as is evident from the suffixal -d.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245. The same in the Usug subdialect: ruʁu-f 'cold' [Shaumyan 1941: 160]. Cf. also the Usug substantive mekʼ (oblique mekʼ-ala-) 'cold, frost' [Shaumyan 1941: 151].
Suleymanov 2003: 144; Shaumyan 1941: 160. The same root in the Tsirkhe subdialect: urʁu- 'cold' [Magometov 1970: 215 sentence 11 "cold water"].
In the Tpig subdialect, cf. the substantive mekʼ (oblique mekʼ-ila-) 'cold, frost' [Suleymanov 2003: 133; Shaumyan 1941: 151].
AGX_NOTES:
The distribution suggests that the Proto-Aghul adjective 'cold' was derived from the substantive 'cold, frost', attested as Gequn ruʁu 'cold, frost' (see above) and ruʁ 'cold, frost', quoted in [Magometov 1970: 46] without dialect specification (probably proper Aghul). Cf. also the paronymous verb, which is attested in non-Koshan dialects as Keren (Richa) ruʁ-a- 'to feel cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 166], proper Aghul (Tpig) ruʁ-a- 'to become cold' [Suleymanov 2003: 144]. For the Koshan (Burshag) dialect two synonymous verbs with the meaning 'to feel cold; to become cold' are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 165] and [Suleymanov 2003: 144]: ʡurʢ-a- and urʕ-a-. The former Burshag stem is perhaps to be analyzed as ʡ=urʢ-a-, although the prefix ʡ= seems very rare or unique (cf. Proper Aghul (Kurag) ʡ=aHa-r xa- 'to know' q.v.); phonetically =urʢ-a- normally corresponds to non-Koshan ruʁ-a-, see [NCED: 133]. The latter Koshan stem urʕ-a- is unclear; formally, it represents the result of secondary pharyngealization.
Only in the Burshag subdialect of Koshan (but not in other Koshan subdialects) this term was superseded with a new adjective, derived from another substantive with the meaning 'cold, frost' - mekʼ (oblique mekʼ-ila-), see the data above.
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are the adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245. Distinct from Dyubek merčʼu-lˈi 'cool, chilly' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245] (historically me-r-čʼu- with the fossilized class exponent -r-).
In the Khanag subdialect: mičʼi-lˈi 'cold' [Uslar 1979: 858, 1009; Dirr 1905: 196, 246], applied to both objects (e.g., water) and weather; distinct from aqˤˈi 'cold (said of weather)' [Dirr 1905: 152, 246].
Two words are quoted for the Khyuryuk subdialect: aqˤˈi {аьхъи} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 25], mičʼi-lˈi {мичIили} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 121] - application and semantic nuances of both terms are unknown.
Two words with the meaning 'cold' are attested in the Khiv subdialect: ʁ=ˈarʁu {гъаргъу} [Genko 2005: 41] (historically ʁ=ˈa-r-ʁu with the fossilized class exponent -r-) and mičʼ-li {мичIли} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 121] - both terms are applied to objects, but the semantic or pragmatic difference is unclear ('cold' and 'cool'?). Distinct from Khiv aqˤˈu {аьхъю} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 25], which is applied to weather, as may be seen from Genko's examples (cf. also an additional example in [Genko 2005: 147 sub tʼaqʼraqʼ]).
Three Literary Tabasaran terms are known: ʁ=ˈaʁu {гъабгъу} 'cold' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 329 sub qˤal] (the example: "cold water"); mičʼ-lˈi {мичIли} 'chilly' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 231]; aqˤˈu {аьхъю} 'cold (said of weather)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 72].
TAB_NOTES:
A tangled situation with three competing roots: (1) *ʡiqˤä- (Northern aqˤˈi ~ aqˤ-lˈi, Southern aqˤˈu); (2) *ʔirqːe(r)- (Southern ʁ=ˈaʁu); (3) *meʼä- (Northern merčʼu-lˈi ~ mičʼi-lˈi, Southern mičʼ-li).
It seems that Northern me-r-čʼu-lˈi ~ mičʼi-lˈi, Southern mičʼ-li can be reconstructed with the specific meaning 'cool, chilly', as retained in both Northern and Southern dialects, although in the Khanag subdialect this acquired the generic meaning 'cold'. It is confirmed by comparative Aghul data that this adjective was derived from the oblique stem of the substantive 'cold, frost' (this substantive is retained as Tabasaran mikʼ ‘wind’ q.v.).
As for Northern aqˤˈi ~ aqˤ-lˈi, Southern aqˤˈu, its normal meaning is 'cold (of weather)', although in the Dyubek subdialect aqˤ-lˈi acquired the meaning 'cold (in general)' (apparently the Dyubek final -li is due to influence on the part of merčʼu-lˈi 'cool, chilly'). This term was derived from the verbal root that is retained in the prefixed form as Dyubek da=ʔaqˤ- 'to become cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 97], Khanag d=aqˤ- 'to become cool, chilly' [Dirr 1905: 163].
Southern ʁ=ˈa-class-ʁu 'cold' (not attested in Northern Tabasaran) is the synchronic perfect participle from the Common Tabasaran verb 'to become cold'. Cf. Northern: Khyuryuk aqː-ˈ {абкъув} 'to feel cold' [Genko 2005: 12], Kumi prefixed qː=aqː-ˈ {къаркъув} 'to feel cold' or 'to get cold' [Genko 2005: 100]; Southern: Khiv aʁ-ˈ {аргъуб} 'to feel cold; to get cold' [Genko 2005: 19], Khiv uʁ-ˈ {ургъуб} 'to freeze (trans., intrans.)' [Genko 2005: 155], Literary Tabasaran aʁ-ˈ {абгъуб} 'to get cold; to feel cold' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 44].
It is possible that Southern ʁ=ˈaʁu reflects the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'cold (in general)'.
Uslar 1896: 485, 638. Glossed as 'cold, cool'; applied to both objects and weather. Perfective participle from the verb räqːi- [imperf.] / qːa- [perf.] 'to get cold' [Uslar 1896: 495]; cf. also the parallel participle qːa-y 'cold wind, cool wind' [Uslar 1896: 485] (inaccurately glossed as 'cool, coolness' by Uslar; see note on 'wind'). Distinct from Gyune mäqʼˈi 'cold (of weather)' [Uslar 1896: 504].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qːa-yˈi {къайи} 'cold, cool (applied to objects)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 176; Gadzhiev 1950: 916; Haspelmath 1993: 501, 517]; perfective participle from the verb reqːˈi- [imperf.] / qːa- [perf.] {къун} 'to get cold' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193]. Distinct from literary meqʼˈi {мекьи} 'cold (of weather)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 234], derived from the substantive meqʼ {мекь} 'cold (n.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 234].
Differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut meqʼˈi 'cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
It is uncertain how the Proto-Lezgi word for 'cold' should be reconstructed. According to the external data, it is likely that Akhty meqʼˈi is an archaic form, whereas the Gyune participle qːa-yˈi represent a late introduction of areal origin, which superseded meqʼˈi in the meaning ‘cold (of objects)’.
Proto-Lezgian:*meƛʼä-4
NCED: 808. Distribution: It seems that in all (or almost all) attested cases the adjective 'cold' can be interpreted as a synchronic derivate from either the substantive 'cold, frost' or the verb 'to be cold' (participle pattern).
A rigoristic approach would surmise leaving the Proto-Lezgian slot empty. Nevertheless, we prefer to reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼä- 'cold (adj.), derived from Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' [NCED: 808]. This seems to be the most archaic Lezgian expression for 'cold (adj.)', and, indeed, the derivation 'cold, frost' > 'cold (adj.)' can theoretically be reconstructed for the Proto-Lezgian level.
The substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' is a Common Lezgian stem, since it is attested in Udi and in Nuclear Lezgian: Aghul, Lezgi (also in Tabasaran, where it shifted to the meaning 'wind (in general)'). The adjective stem *meƛʼä- 'cold' also displays relevant distribution. It is attested in Caucasian Albanian, on the one hand, and in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Proto-Lezgi, on the other. In some East Lezgian lects - Koshan Aghul (Burshag), Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) - the adjectives for 'cold' contain the same root, but these forms represent synchronic derivatives from the substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost'.
In Udi, 'cold (adj.)' is expressed with *čawχː- [NCED: 346], whose original meaning was substantival, cf. the synchronic polysemy in Udi: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.), frost / ice'.
The verbal root *ʡiqˤä- 'to get cold' [NCED: 568] forms synchronic participles with the meaning 'cold (adj.)' in Archi and Northern Tabasaran (Dyubek).
The verbal root *ʔirqːe(r)- 'to get cold' [NCED: 649] forms synchronic participles with the meaning 'cold (adj.)' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Aghul, Proto-Tabasaran, Gyune Lezgi.
The derivation 'to get cold' > 'cold' is likely to be a relatively late areal isogloss.
Gukasyan 1974: 122; Fähnrich 1999: 15; Dirr 1903: 10, 40, 51, 56, 69, 85, 89, 94, 95; Schiefner 1863: 77; Starchevskiy 1891: 488. Glossed as 'to come, to arrive'; but incorrectly as 'to go, walk' in [Schulze 2001: 275], cf. contexts like Mt. 8.9, where e(y)- 'to come' is opposed to ta(y)- 'to go': "I tell this one, 'Go (take),' and he goes (tanesa); and to another, 'Come (eke),' and he comes (enesa)" [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902].
In [Fähnrich 1999: 30] the variant eʁ-esun is also quoted - an important archaism, see notes on 'to go'.
UDI_NOTES:
As described in [Maisak 2008a: 107 ff., 154 ff.], a suppletive paradigm: e(y)- (present-infinitive) / ar- (past) / eʁ- (future) / ek- (imperative). For the paradigmatic distribution of the Nidzh variants e- and ey- see [Maisak 2008a: 107].
Originally *e=iʁ (> e=y) / ar- / *e=iʁ- / e=k- with the preverb *(h)e- 'hither', see notes on 'to go'.
Caucasian Albanian: A suppletive verb heʁ- (present-infinitive) / ar- (past) / hekal- (imperative) [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44, 45, 51, IV-26]. With the exception of the imperative root, directly corresponds to the Udi paradigm. For further analysis see notes on 'to go'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 75; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 188, 376; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 495; Mikailov 1967: 171; Dirr 1908: 131, 219. Glossed as 'to come, to arrive'.
As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 72; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Chumakina et al. 2007], a suppletive verb: =ˈaƛi- [inf., imperf.] / =qˤˈa [perf.] / zˈa-ba [imv.] (-ba in the imperative stem is the light verb 'to say') / =hˈeˤ- [potential]. We treat =ˈaƛi- and =qˤˈa as synonyms. The latter is etymologically the same root as =ˈoqˤe- 'to go' q.v.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 75. Suppletive paradigm: ʕ=ušχä- [imperf.] / ʕ=uxu- [perf.] / ʕ=ušä- [imv.]. We treat ʕ=uxu- [perf.] and ʕ=ušχä- [imperf.] as synonyms. Both stems contain the preverb ʕ- 'in'; the imperfective stem is apparently a compound of two Proto-Lezgian verbal roots: ʕ=uš-χä-, thus [NCED: 657, 666]. Perfective ʕ=uxu- contains the same root as 'to go' q.v.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 68, 74, 77, 884, 897; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 375. According to [Kibrik et al. 1999], a suppletive verb: qˤ=aʔ-a [imperf.] / q=aʔ-ɨ [perf.] / q=alʸ-es [fut.] / q=or-a [imv.]. Cf. synchronic forms: imperf. class 1/2/3/4 qˤaː, perf. 1/2 qarɨ, 3 qabɨ, 4 qadɨ, fut. 1/4 qalʸes, 2 qayeːlʸes, 3 qawalʸes, imv. 1/4 qora, 2 qeːra, 3 qiwora. Polysemy: 'to come / to bring (animated obj.)' in perf. & fut., although in imperf. & imv. the roots for 'to come' and 'to bring' are different.
There is also another suppletive verb with the more generic meaning 'to come, arrive / to bring (animated & inanimate obj.)', formed with the same roots aʔ- [perf.] / al- [imperf., fut., imv.] and the zero prefix (or with the prefix ʔ- - an automatic prothesis for vocalic onset): allʸes [Kibrik et al. 1999: 63, 869].
Ibragimov 1990: 183, 195, 213. Only the form of fut. is known: q-i-class-ʔ-ez ~ q-i-class-y-ez. The paronymous verb aʔ- (formed with the zero prefix) is a close synonym: fut. aryez, abyez, prohib. maraye, mabaye 'to come' [Ibragimov 1990: 196]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 495], only the second verb is quoted: fut. a-class-ʔ-ez (a-r-ʔ-ez {аръез}).
TKR_NOTES:
Initial q= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
According to the data in [Makhmudova 2001] and [Ibragimov 1978], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=ɨqʼ-a [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
According to the data in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=iqʼ-ä [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
Suppletive paradigm: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=ɨqʼ-ɨ [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
RUT_NOTES:
An irregular verb (with two synonymous stems for the imperfective), but the paradigms generally coincide in all three dialects. Two imperfective stems with polysemy: 'to go / to come' are genetically related. See notes on 'to go'.
Initial y= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Makhmudova 2001: 165].
Shaumyan 1941: 139. The following paradigmatic forms can be extracted from [Shaumyan 1941: 139] and [Suleymanov 2003: 18]: we-y- [imperf.] / ad-ina- [perf.] / ad-i- [inf.] / šab [imv.].
AGX_NOTES:
A very irregular verb, although the suppletive paradigms generally coincide in all dialects. In the imperfective and prohibitive forms, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'; further see notes on 'to go'. All dialectal perfective forms (arg-i-, ad-i-, ar-i-) are etymologically related, originating from one proto-root [NCED: 422].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁˤ- [imperf., inf.] / af- [perf.] / ʁač [imv.] {гъюб} 'to come' [Genko 2005: 45]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁˤ- [imperf., inf.] / af- [perf.] {гъюб} 'to come' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 117].
TAB_NOTES:
An irregular verb with three roots, although the suppletive paradigms coincide in both dialects. The imperfective stem Qˤ- contains the same root as 'to go' q.v.
The authors of [NCED], confused by the ambiguous Cyrillic orthography, transcribe the perfective stem as ata- with a subsequent incorrect connection to the Udi verb 'to go' q.v. [NCED: 423].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqːʷˤä-1
NCED: 572. Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root, attested with several ablaut grades. Reconstructed as the imperfective stem with polysemy 'to go / to come'. Further see notes on 'to go'.
NCED: 1016. Reconstruction shape: The exact phonetic shape of a root with such a structure is not reconstructible. According to the table of correspondences in [NCED: 150], one could expect *ʔʷ > Udi p instead of observed 0, but this can hardly be an obstacle to the whole etymology.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root, used as the perfective stem for 'to come'. Further see notes on 'to go'.
As noted in [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.] and [Schulze 2005: 541 f. (3.4.2.1 #23)], the paradigm is suppletive in both dialects: bi- (present-infinitive, imperative, future) / pːur- (past). Udi bi- is historically analyzed as b=i- with the b-prefix, see notes on 'to burn'. The second root pːur- is probably to be analyzed as *pːu-ar- with the past stem of the light verb -ar- 'came', thus [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44]. An expression for 'to kill' (q.v.) is based on the same synchronical root bi-.
Caucasian Albanian: A suppletive paradigm: bilʸ-a- (present, imperative, future) / upʼ (infinitive) / pʼur-i- (past) [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44, IV-35]. A labile verb with the polysemy: 'to die / to kill (q.v.)'. The stem bilʸ-a- probably corresponds directly to modern Udi bi- with a different treatment of Lezgian *ƛʼ. The noun upʼ ~ upʼ-en 'death' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-35] is included in the verbal paradigm as the infinitive stem. Nominal upʼ- and verbal pʼu- are etymologically related; see notes on 'to say'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 264, 386; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 246; Mikailov 1967: 186; Dirr 1908: 159, 225. Applied to sg. subj. As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243; Chumakina et al. 2007], a synchronically suppletive verb: =kʼˈi- [inf.] / =kʼˈa- [imperf., perf.] / =kʼim- [imv.]. The choice between two main stems, =kʼi- / =kʼa-, is irrelevant for the lexicostatistical procedure.
Distinct from the suppletive verb =χʷi- [inf., imv.] / =χʷa-l- [imperf.] / χu-l-lˈe [perf.] 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 334, 386; Chumakina et al. 2007].
Authier 2009: 416. Polysemy: 'to die / to kill (q.v.)'. Etymologically the same paradigm as in Kryts proper: r=ɨqʼi- [imperf.] / qʼä(y)- [perf.] / s=aqʼ [imv.].
Distinct from h=atʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 885].
Another (apparently less frequent) verb for 'to die' is kʸečmiš-x- [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880], which consists of the borrowed Azerbaijani adjective kečmiš 'last, past' plus the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become'.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 247. The future stem. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], quoted as q=iɢ-az {хъикъаз} - an error for q=ikʼ-az {хъикIаз}.
TKR_NOTES:
Initial q= and h= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. The verb q=ikʼ- 'to die (sg. subj.)' contains the same root as 'to kill (sg. obj.)' q.v., modified with another prefix; the verb h=atʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' contains the same root as 'to kill (pl. obj.)', modified with another prefix.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 131, 407; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 247. In [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], only examples of sg. subj. have been found. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to kill / to die', applied to sg. obj./subj.
Distinct from class=ɨrqʼ- / class=qʼɨrqʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170].
RUT_NOTES:
Proto-Rutul labile verb =iqʼ- 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)' with the reduplicated stem for the plural semantics. See further notes on 'to kill'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: l=ikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / ɢa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] / yikʼ [imv.] / kʼ- [inf.]. Note the rare imperfective prefix l= and the regular perfective exponent ɢa=. Applied to sg. subj. with polysemy: 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)'. Distinct from Dyubek yiχ-ˈ 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: l=ikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / qːa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] / yikʼ [imv.] / kʼ- [inf.] 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Uslar 1979: 754, 800, 1008; Dirr 1905: 180, 190, 245]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: l=ikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / qːa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] / yikʼ [imv.] / kʼ- [inf.] {кIув} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихув} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Genko 2005: 80, 112].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: yikʼ-ˈ [imperf., imv., inf.] / ʁˈa=kʼ- [perf.]. Applied to sg. subj. with polysemy: 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)'. Distinct from Kondik yiχ-ˈ 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170].
The same in the Khiv and Khoredzh subdialects: yikʼ-ˈ {йикIуб} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихуб} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.) / to beat up (pl. obj.)' [Genko 2005: 80]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / ʁa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] {йибкIуб} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихуб} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184].
TAB_NOTES:
Labile verbs with polysemy yikʼ- 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)' and yiχ- 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' in all the dialects.
Uslar 1896: 529, 636, 637. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: r=äqʼˈi- [imperf.] / qʼˈe- [perf.] / qʼi- [masdar] / yiqʼ [imv.]. Initial r= is the old imperfective exponent. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to die / to kill'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: r=eqʼˈi- [imperf.] / qʼˈe- [perf.] / qʼi- ~ qʼi-n-iqʼ [masdar] / yiqʼ [imv.] {кьин, кьиникь} 'to die / to kill' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 205; Gadzhiev 1950: 883; Haspelmath 1993: 289, 503, 518, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 442]. The masdar qʼi-n-iqʼ is reduplicated.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiƛʼe1
NCED: 661. Distribution: The Lezgian data on the verbs for 'to die' and 'to kill' can be summarized as follows (the slash sign "/" denotes lability):
'TO DIE/TO KILL'
Proto-CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ʔiƛʼe [NCED: 661]
'die/kill' imperf.
'die' sg.
'die/kill'
'die'
'die', 'kill' sg. (different prefixes)
'die/kill' sg. (redupl. = pl.)
'die/kill'
'die/kill' sg.
'die/kill'
*ʔilχʷe [NCED: 635]
'die' pl.
'die/kill' pl.
*ʔatʼʷɨ- [NCED: 271]
'kill'
'die', 'kill' pl. (different prefixes)
*ʔarčːa- [NCED: 265]
'kill'
*VpʼV
*pʼu- 'die/kill' perf.
The root *ʔiƛʼe can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian labile verb for 'to die / to kill', at least with singular subject ('to die') / object ('to kill') and at least as the imperfective stem.
The only languages that suppletively discriminate between the imperfective and perfective stems are Caucasian Albanian and Udi. Formally, such a situation could reflect a Proto-Lezgian feature, but CA-Udi *pʼu- (with the ablaut variant *upʼ-) is isolated within Lezgian and possesses rather scant external comparanda (the Khinalug verb iːb-i 'to kill' and the imperative stem iːb-i 'to die'), so it is preferable to regard Caucasian Albanian-Udi *pʼu- as a secondary complication of the verbal paradigm in question.
Archi and some Nuclear Lezgian lects demonstrate the lexical opposition between verbs with singular and plural subject/object. Formally, this could be a late innovation of areal origin, but there are actually no reasons not to project such a opposition onto the Proto-Lezgian level. If so, the correspondence sg. *ʔiƛʼe / pl. *ʔilχʷe between Archi and Tabasaran should be reflecting the Proto-Lezgian situation. In many other lects *ʔiƛʼe acquired both singular and plural functions.
Some of the lects have lost the original lability. Thus, in modern Udi 'to kill' is the synchronic causative from 'to die'. In Archi, 'to kill' is euphemistically expressed by the verb 'to perform an action most typically associated with the given object in the current situation' (*ʔarčːa-), although the synchronic causatives from 'to die (sg.)' and 'to die (pl.)' are also used for 'to kill'. In Tsakhur, 'to die' and 'to kill' are distinguished by means of different fossilized prefixes.
In Budukh, 'to kill' is expressed by *ʔatʼʷɨ-, whose original meaning was 'to cut' [NCED: 271]. Independently, the same root shifted to plural 'to die, kill' in Tsakhur.
In Rutul dialects, the verb 'to strike, hit' (*yirχˤa- [NCED: 581]) can acquire the basic meaning 'to kill'.
Consequently, we reconstruct two Proto-Lezgian labile verbs: *ʔiƛʼe 'to die / to kill' (sg.) and *ʔilχʷe 'to die / to kill' (pl.).
Replacements: {'to cut' > 'to die / to kill'} (Tsakhur).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to the fossilized class prefix in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 147], a second word for 'dog' is also quoted: qʼatʼay {кьатIай}. This is actually the adjective qʼätʼ-äy {кьаьтIаьй} 'tailless, short-tailed (said of animals)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 162] (from qʼatʼ 'cut-off fragment').
Luchek Rutul:tɨla-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73.
RUT_NOTES:
Borrowed from Azerbaijani tula 'gundog' or directly from the Iranian forms (e.g., Persian tola 'gundog', Judeo-Tat tula 'gundog'), although the vowel adaptation is unclear.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73; Suleymanov 2003: 55. Synchronically, suppletive plural: χur-ur (without pharyngealization?). In [Magometov 1970: 23], transcribed as χːˤuy - an important archaism.
Keren Aghul:tula-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73. The same loanword in the Usug subdialect: tula 'dog' [Shaumyan 1941: 191]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tula 'gundog' or ultimately from the corresponding Iranian forms (e.g., Persian tola 'gundog', Judeo-Tat tula 'gundog').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: χːuy 'dog' [Uslar 1979: 958, 1006; Dirr 1905: 216, 242]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk χːuy {ххуй},Kumi χuy {хуй}'dog' [Genko 2005: 166, 168].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: χu {ху} 'dog' [Genko 2005: 166]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χu {ху} 'dog' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317].
TAB_NOTES:
Note the retention of tense fricative χː in the Northern subdialects. The Kondik oblique stem χuyi- (not **χu̥yi-) also points to an old tense consonant, although such paradigms are expected to get levelled after the monosyllabic absolutive form.
The same in Literary Lezgi: kicʼ {кицI} 'dog' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 160; Gadzhiev 1950: 791; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 518].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kicʼ 'dog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73].
Proto-Lezgian:*χːʷäya1
NCED: 1073. Distribution: A rather stable root, retained in Udi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. In Lezgi, superseded with *kicʼ / *cʼik, whose original meaning was 'puppy', as proved by its Lezgian and external North Caucasian cognates [NCED: 692].
Superseded with loanwords in Archi (< Lak), Rutul and Keren Aghul (< Azerbaijani or Iranian).
In [Mobili 2010: 151-152] χupː, χupː-sun are also translated into Russian as 'to drink', 'to drink water', but their Azerbaijani glosses rather mean something like 'to suck up (water) slurping'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 157; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 276. Synchronically, the paradigm is suppletive: qː=iɢr- [imperf.] / qːɨr- [perf.] / s=äɢːɨr- [imv.]. Initial sː= is a prefix with general semantics, initial qː= is the prefix 'down' [Saadiev 1994: 424]. The imperfective stem is analyzed as reduplicated in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 45], which is unnecessary if we assume the prefix qː=.
Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 178; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 276. Imperf. class 4 ilʸ-oʁ-a, fut. class 4 ilʸ-oʁ-as, perf. class 4 ilʸ-o-d-ʁ-i.
It must be noted that in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878, 897] this root is quoted with a labialized uvular as ilʸ=oʁʷ-, cf. imperf. class 4 ilʸ-oʁʷ-a, fut. class 4 ilʸ-oʁʷ-as (also perf. class 4 ilʸ-o-d-ʁʷ-u). This labialization contradicts data from other sources and looks strange from the synchronic viewpoint: according to Tsakhur morphophonology, Cʷ normally dissimilates into C after labial o, u, b, p, w, cf., e.g., Mishlesh imperf. 2 hē-čʼʷan ← {h-o-y-y-čʼʷan}, but 3 hōčʼan < *hōčʼʷan ← {h-o-w-y-čʼʷan}, 1/4 hoyčʼan < *hoyčʼʷan ← {h-o-y-čʼʷan} 'to press' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 72, also 70], see the same statement for Mikik in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41 fn. 116]. It might be suggested that Kibrik et al.'s transription ilʸoʁʷa- reflects some sporadic and irregular progressive assimilation, e.g. -oʁa- > -oʁʷa-?
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 157. Distinct from the more specific Dyubek verb q=ˈuχ- 'to sip' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 157] (initial q= is a desemanticized spatial prefix [Magometov 1965: 218, 222]).
The same basic verb in the Khanag subdialect: wuqː-ˈ 'to drink' [Uslar 1979: 627, 1001]. It should be noted that in [Dirr 1905: 212, 237], this verb is transcribed as wuʁ- or uʁ- {у̨ҕ-} 'to drink' - the form either actually represents some specific Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr' records.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: wuqː-ˈ {вубкъув} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 33].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: uχ-ˈ [imperf., perf., inf.] / iχ [imv.] {ухуб} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 157].
In some subdialects another root is attested: Chara ˈuq- {ухъуб}, Sirtych üq-ˈ {юхъуб} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 157, 198]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: uq-ˈ {убхъуб} 'to drink' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 291].
TAB_NOTES:
Three phonetically similar, but nevertheless distinguishable roots for 'to drink' are attested in the Tabasaran dialect cluster: uχ-, uɢ- ~ wuqː-, uq-.
The latter one, uq- 'to drink', is clearly an innovation in some Southern subdialects (Chara, Sirtych, also Literary Tabasaran); the external Lezgian etymology points out that its primary meaning was 'to suck' [NCED: 222], and this semantics is still retained in such prefixed Tabasaran verbs as Khyuryuk, Khiv kː=ˈuq- {ккубхъув, ккухъуб} 'to suck' [Genko 2005: 96, 97]. It should be noted, however, that this proto-root also acquired the generic meaning 'to drink' in the Lezgi language.
The choice between uɢ-ˈ ~ wuqː-ˈ (Northern 'to drink', lost in Southern) and uχ- (Northern 'to sip', Southern 'to drink') is not so easy. The former verb originates from the best candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to drink' (*HVqːVr-), but the latter one, uχ-, corresponds to the basic Aghul verb uχ-a- 'to drink'. In all likelihood, the Northern verb uɢ-ˈ ~ wuqː-ˈ represents an archaism, whereas local Southern uχ- is a recent innovation (perhaps of areal origin, cf. the Aghul term).
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʷa- {хъун} 'to drink' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 354; Gadzhiev 1950: 539; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 518; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 358].
Proto-Lezgian:*HVqːVr-1
NCED: 616. Distribution: *HVqːVr- can safely be postulated as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to drink'. It is retained in its original meaning in Caucasian Albanian and Udi, on the one hand, and in Nuclear Lezgian, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Tabasaran (Northern dialect). In Archi, this root has survived in the substantive 'a gulp'.
Three other roots, attested with the generic meaning 'to drink' in Lezgian lects, are clear innovations from the distributive point of view.
In Archi, 'to drink' is expressed with *ʔVcʼV (~ -cʼː-). This root seems isolated within Lezgian, but external North Caucasian comparison seems to point to the original meaning 'to gulp (vel sim.)' [NCED: 1017].
The root *ʔoχʷa has acquired the basic meaning 'to drink' in Aghul and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'to gulp' (further to North Caucasian 'to suck') [NCED: 1027].
Similarly, *ʔoqʷa- has become the basic root for 'to drink' in Lezgi and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'to suck' [NCED: 222].
Caucasian Albanian: Attributive term is unattested. The old Lezgian root is known from the compound verb qʼari-biy-esun 'to (let) wither' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-31] with the verb biy-esun 'to do, make' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-8].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 684; Dirr 1908: 178, 223. Regular participle from the verb 'to become dry, to dry out'. As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 73; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 305; Chumakina et al. 2007], this verb has two etymologically related stems: =qʼurˈa- [inf., perf.] / =qʼʷar- [imperf.]. Prefixed forms of Class IV, as well as the partially reduplicated imperative =qʼurˈa-qʼːa, prove that the initial uvular of the root is phonologically tense (qʼː-).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 684. Apparently a participle from an unattested stative verb. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], the paronymous adjective säʕä is also quoted as a synonym. It must be noted that the correspondence Kryts (proper) ʕ /Alyk Kryts ʔ looks suspicious; this could be a borrowing from an unknown source.
A second candidate is s=uqu-d or s=uqʼu-d 'dry', quoted in [Dirr 1912: 172, 201] with the example "dry firewood" (note that Dirr's notation rather speaks in favour of s=uqʼu-d with ejective -qʼ-). This is the participle from the verb 'to get dry', which is quoted in [Makhmudova 2001: 245] as s=uɢ- {сукъас} with -ɢ- (sic!). Its counterpart in the Borch-Khnov dialect sounds as su=q=uq- {сухъухъури} 'to get dry' [Ibragimov 1978: 268, 272], with -q- in the root. The exact phonetics, as well as the etymology of this Rutul verb is unclear.
Distinct from Tpig qːurah {къурагь} 'drought; arid' [Suleymanov 2003: 118], borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid'.
AGX_NOTES:
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Derived from the verb 'to dry (intrans.)', which is attested in the following forms: Koshan dialect: urqːa- [Shaumyan 1941: 160; Magometov 1970: 57]; Keren dialect: Usug ruqːa- [Shaumyan 1941: 160]; Gequn dialect ruqːʷa- [Dirr 1907: 140] ~ ruqːa- [Shaumyan 1941: 160]; proper Aghul dialect: Tpig ruqːa- [Magometov 1970: 57, 197 strophe II; Shaumyan 1941: 160], Tsirkhe urqːa- [Magometov 1970: 215 sentence 18] ~ ruqːa- [Shaumyan 1941: 160]. Note Dirr's qːʷ and the lost of labialization of qːʷ in the modern verbal forms (a recent areal process of dissimilative delabialization uCʷ > uC [Magometov 1970: 26]).
Northern Tabasaran:yiʒˈi3
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242. Actually yi-w-ʒˈi with the fossilized class exponent -w-.
The same root in the Kumi subdialect: qː=ˈi-r-cːi {къирцци} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 101] (with the class infix -r- and the verbal perfective exponent qː=).
Differently in other subdialects:Khanag qːurˈi 'dry' [Dirr 1905: 189, 244] (not found in [Uslar 1979]), Khyuryuk qːurˈi {къури} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 102].
Southern Tabasaran:ʁe=yˈecːu3
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242. Actually ʁe=yˈe-class-cːu; initial ʁe= is the verbal perfective exponent.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁe=yˈe-r-cːu {гъеерццу} ~ ʁ=ˈe-r-cːu {гъерццу} 'dry', found in such examples as "withered flowers" [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 155a], "dry leaves rustled in the breeze" [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349a] (with the fossilized class infix -r-). Distinct from Literary Tabasaran qːurˈah {къурагь} 'dry (of climate)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 207], borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid'.
Three words for 'dry' are quoted for the Khiv subdialect, with no known difference: qːurˈu {къуру} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 102], ʁurˈu {гъуру} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 45] and ʁ=ˈe-r-cːu {гъерццу} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 42] (with the fossilized class infix -r-). The Khiv opposition qːurˈu / ʁurˈu is very suspicious (Genko's error?); it should be noted that the etymologically correct variant is qːurˈu.
TAB_NOTES:
The adjective qːurˈi, retained in some subdialects (both Northern and Southern), represents an archaism and must be posited as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'dry'. The etymologically primary verb 'to get dry' is attested as Southern Tabasaran uqː-: Khiv u-r-qː- {уркъуб} 'to get dry (of soil, hide, spring)' [Genko 2005: 155] (with the fossilized class infix -r-), Literary Tabasaran uqː-ˈ {убкъуб} 'to get dry (of bread, clay)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 291].
In many subdialects (including Dyubek and Kondik), however, 'dry (adj.)' is expressed as a synchronic perfective participle from the verb 'to dry (trans., intrans.)', modified with the class infixes and normally with the perfective prefix qː= / ʁ= (for which see [Magometov 1965: 222]). Cf. Northern: Khanag ecː- 'to dry (trans., intrans.)' [Dirr 1905: 168] (not found in [Uslar 1979]), Khyuryuk icː-ˈ {ибццув} 'to dry (intrans.)' [Genko 2005: 73]; Southern: Khiv ecː-ˈ {эрццуб} 'to dry (trans., intrans.)' [Genko 2005: 196], Literary Tabasaran yecː-ˈ {ебццуб} 'to dry (trans., intrans.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 155].
Uslar 1896: 532, 634. Participle from the verb qʼurˈa- 'to dry (intrans.)' [Uslar 1896: 532].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼurˈa-y {кьурай} 'dry' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Gadzhiev 1950: 831; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 518], participle from the verb qʼurˈa- {кьурун} 'to dry (intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208]. A second literary term for 'dry' is the paronymous qʼurˈu {кьуру} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Gadzhiev 1950: 831; Haspelmath 1993: 504] - an inherited form, whose vocalism may have been influenced by the Azerbaijani word guru 'dry'. The difference between qʼurˈa-y and qʼurˈu is unclear. Distinct from literary qʼurˈah {кьурагь} 'dry (of climate)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Haspelmath 1993: 504], ultimately borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid', but influenced by the inherited qʼura-. For morphology cf. also the literary substantive qʼur {кьур} 'dryness' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208].
Morphologically different in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːur-qːˈur 'dry' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242]; this is a reduplicated formation from the same Lezgi root.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqʼːʷar-1
NCED: 631. Distribution: The primary verbal root *ʔiqʼːʷar- 'to get dry' is attested in Archi, on the one hand, and in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), on the other. Its adjective derivatives of a participial nature with the meaning 'dry' have survived in all attested Lezgian lects, except for South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and some Tabasaran subdialects. In a number of Lezgian languages, inherited adjectival forms were phonetically influenced by the Azerbaijani word guru 'dry', but there are no reasons to consider these to be loanwords, since *ʔiqʼːʷar- is deeply rooted in Lezgian and possesses reliable North Caucasian comparanda [NCED: 631].
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), 'dry' is a participle from the etymologically obscure verbal root *saʔV- or *aʔV-, unattested elsewhere [LEDb: #251].
In many Tabasaran subdialects, the original participle has been superseded with the participle from another verb for 'to dry (intrans.)': ecː-, see notes on Common Tabasaran.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to Azerbaijani influenced forms.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root 'to be dry, get dry'.
Common Udi *iˤm-uχ with the occasional assimilative labialization i > u in Nidzh um-uχˤ (-uχ is a fossilized plural exponent). The irregular loss of pharyngealization in Vartashen im-uχ is to be explained by the influence of the verb i-bak-sun 'to hear' q.v. and the noun i 'hearing, ability to hear' (if it actually exists; see notes on 'to hear'; in [Schulze 2001: 283] Udi i is incorrectly interpreted as 'ear (anatomic)').
Caucasian Albanian: ʕim 'ear; hearing' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. Attested both in sg. (ʕim) and pl. (ʕim-uq). Incorrectly analyzed as ʕi- in [Gippert et al. 2008]. In fact, however, the verb ʕi-biqʼ-esun 'to listen' (see notes on 'to hear') indeed contains the root ʕi, which is apparently the result of reanalysis of ʕim-uq 'ears' as ʕi-m-uq with the plural exponent -m-uq (for this double suffix in Caucasian Albanian see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-22]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 12. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 193, 194] the Kryts words for 'ear' (ibɨr) and 'earlobe' (sibel) are erroneously interchanged. Historically ib-ɨr with a fossilized plural suffix.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ew 'ear' [Uslar 1979: 677, 1009; Dirr 1905: 166, 245]. The same in the Kumi subdialect: iw {ив} 'ear' [Genko 2005: 73].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv eb {эб},Chara ib {иб}'ear' [Genko 2005: 73, 193]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ib {иб} 'ear' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 172].
The same in Literary Lezgi: yab [abs.] / yapː-ˈu- [obl.] {яб} 'ear' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 399; Gadzhiev 1950: 897; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 518].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut eb [abs.] / epː-ˈeni- [obl.] 'ear' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 12].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔˤamː1
NCED: 239. Distribution: *ʔˤamː is retained as the basic root for 'ear' in all Lezgian lects, except for Tsakhur, where the etymologically obscure word kʼɨrɨ 'ear' [LEDb: #202] is observed.
In many languages, synchronic forms are modified with fossilized plural suffixes.
Ganenkov et al. 2008: 240 (8), 254 (34, 41); Gukasyan 1974: 185; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29; Mobili 2010: 223. It should be noted that in [Gukasyan 1974; Comrie & Khalilov 2010; Mobili 2010] this word is quoted as očːˤal {оч́ал} - apparently Gukasyan's error was repeated (as in some other cases) by posterior authors. According to T. Maisak's and Dm. Ganenkov's field records, non-tense očˤal is phonologically clearly opposed to the word očːˤi {оч́и} 'dirt, mud' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201]; similarly, the variant očˤal {очъал} is also normally used in the modern literary orthography (cf., e.g., G. Keçaari's volume Нана очъал = "Native land").
All sources quote kːul and očˤal as synonyms for 'earth, soil', except for [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. The latter dictionary gives only kːul as the translation for 'earth, soil' (with polysemy: 'earth, soil / territory, plot'). On the contrary, text evidence from [Ganenkov et al. 2008: 240 (8), 254 (34, 41)] confirms očˤal as the most generic and common word for 'earth, soil', as well as 'land': "There is a place named so-and-so ... which existed on the Nidzh land (očˤal) as early as 2400-2500 years ago", "The soil (očˤal) cleans it (just prepared vodka) of its odours ... We take it (a buried jug with vodka) out from the ground (očˤal)".
According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., in Nidzh kːul indeed means 'soil', but this word is very rare in the collected corpus. The default expression for all the meanings is currently očˤal.
Vartashen Udi:kːul {кIул}2
Gukasyan 1974: 146; Fähnrich 1999: 21; Dirr 1903: 28; Schiefner 1863: 83; Schulze 2001: 293; Starchevskiy 1891: 499. Cf. some examples for the meaning 'soil', like "they threw/scattered the earth", "order to deliver some soil from his fatherland!", "the elder sisters covered their urine with earth in order not to let it foam" [Dirr 1903: 28, 46, 89], "a handful of earth" [Schiefner 1863: 54]. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] kːul normally means 'land' or 'soil', e.g., Mt. 13.5 "Others fell on rocky ground, where they didn't have much soil (kːul), and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of earth (očˤal)".
Distinct from the term očˤal {очъал} 'earth' [Gukasyan 1974: 185; Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 19, 26; Schiefner 1863: 78; Schulze 2001: 303; Starchevskiy 1891: 499]. In [Gukasyan 1974: 185] this is quoted as očːˤal {оч́ал} (apparently an error, see notes on Nidzh Udi); in [Fähnrich 1999: 25] the word is quoted as simply očal - apparently for očˤal; also quoted as očˤal in [Schulze 2001], despite the fact that Bežanovs' {ч̆} may cover čː, čˤ and čːˤ; graphical {c} in [Schiefner 1863], {ч} in [Dirr 1903] and {ц} in [Starchevskiy 1891] can hardly clarify the phonetical nature of the sibilant. It should be noted that normally this term is graphically opposed to očːˤi 'dirt, mud' (e.g., [Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 18; Schiefner 1863: 78]).
Vartashen očˤal means 'earth, ground', not 'soil', cf. some contexts: "to the ground", "he saw, as a mouse got out of the ground", "the earth quakes" (= 'earthquake') [Dirr 1903: 19, 64], "the silver ingot melted and spilt on the ground" [Schiefner 1863: 68]. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] {оч̆ал} normally means 'earth' as opposed to 'heaven' ("I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth", etc.) or 'ground' (cf. above Mt. 13.5, where two terms are opposed).
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kːul 'earth, soil' (as opposed to *očˤal 'earth, ground, land'). In Modern Nidzh kːul is currently being superseded by očˤal 'earth, ground, land' under the influence of the polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian. Udi kːul, however, lacks any etymology; in [Schulze 2001: 293] kːul is treated as a borrowing from Azerbaijani kül 'ashes', but it is not very likely due to semantic difference.
It is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 303] that očˤal 'earth, ground, land' can be derived from očːˤi 'dirt, mud', which seems unsuccessful both phonetically (č vs. čː) and semantically (derivation 'mud' > 'soil' is typologically normal, whereas 'mud' > 'land, ground' is odd). The relationship between Udi očˤal 'ground, land' and Caucasian Albanian ašˤal 'world, land, ground' is uncertain, see below. The external Lezgian etymology of Udi očˤal is also not entirely clear (cf. Lezgian *čːil 'earth, floor').
Caucasian Albanian: The only candidate is ašˤal 'earth (as opposed to heaven); world; land, country; ground ("he was thrown down on the ground")' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7], although ašˤal is unattested in the specific meaning 'soil'. As proposed in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-10, IV-7], ašˤal can be cognate with Udi očˤal 'earth, land, ground' (the Udi word is erroneously quoted as ošˤal in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-10]). Despite the semantic exactness of the comparison, this remains phonetically problematic: see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-76] for a couple of instances of the correspondence CA a ~ Udi o, but the correspondence CA šˤ ~ Udi čˤ seems unique and irregular.
Distinct from ayz 'earth, world' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-4] (corresponds to Udi ayiz ~ aiz 'village' [Gukasyan 1974: 37]) and various terms for 'clay': eluχ [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-14], hol [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-27].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 284, 360; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29; Mikailov 1967: 194; Dirr 1908: 169, 209. All sources specified as 'soil', except [Chumakina et al. 2007], where the polysemy: 'soil / land' is noted (the latter is probably a recent introduction under the influence of neighbouring languages like Azerbaijani or Russian). Paradigm: naqʼʷ [abs.] / nˈeqʼʷ-i [erg.].
Distinct from the adverbs qʼˈa-tːu 'on the ground', qʼˈa-tːu-k 'to the ground' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 302] (from *qʼa- 'down' [NCED: 616] with the adjective suffix -tːu) and dunˈil with polysemy 'sky / world / life' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 224] (the latter was borrowed from Avar dunˈiyal 'world / life / weather', ultimately from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world').
Authier 2009: 34, 56, 212, 230, etc. This word means 'earth, soil', distinct from qʼum 'ground; earth (as opposed to heaven)' [Authier 2009: 38, 181, 206, etc.].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 871, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 403. Polysemy: 'earth, soil / ground'. Cf. examples: "The boy digs the earth" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 574], "This girl used to sit down on the ground and stain her clothes" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 781].
A second candidate is the more marginal term torpaχ [Kibrik et al. 1999: 888, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 342], which means both 'earth, plot' (cf. Ibragimov & Nurmamedov's example "ground landlord") and 'earth, soil' (cf. torpaχ-šunas 'soil scientist, pedologist' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 342]). Borrowed from Azerbaijani torpag 'earth (soil, plot, land, ground)'.
Distinct from ǯilʸ {джилʹ} 'earth floor' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890; [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 160].
Distinct from dʸunʸye 'earth, world' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 872, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 158], borrowed from Azerbaijani dünya 'earth, world' (ultimately from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world').
The old term nʸaqʼʷ [abs.] / nʸuqʼ- [obl.] is retained in the meaning 'grave, tomb' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 883]; in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 277] this is quoted with polysemy: 'clay, earth / grave, tomb'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29], Literary Tsakhur and Gelmets Tsakhur forms for 'earth' are interchanged: naqʼʷ (an error for nʸaqʼʷ) is quoted for the literary language, čʼiye - for Gelmets.
A second candidate is čʼiye [Dirr 1913: 215, 226], but this rather means 'earth, ground', cf. an example: "Underground there is a jug with oil (= badger)" (a riddle) [Dirr 1913: 119].
Distinct from ǯil-a 'floor' (i.e. 'earth floor'?) [Dirr 1913: 158].
The Proto-Tsakhur term was no doubt nʸaqʼʷ, already with polysemy: 'earth, soil / grave, tomb'; in Early Proto-Tsakhur the meaning was simply 'earth, soil'; in modern Mishlesh this has been narrowed down to 'grave', having been superseded by Proto-Tsakhur čʼiye 'earth, ground' > 'earth, ground; earth, soil' (under the influence of generic terms for 'earth' in Azerbaijani, Russian and Avar?). This scenario follows from the fact that the shift 'soil' > 'grave' is logical and typologically normal, whereas vice versa can hardly be imagined. The noun ǯil denoted 'earth floor' in Proto-Tsakhur.
Dirr 1912: 162, 191; Ibragimov 1978: 118; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29. According to Dirr, with polysemy: 'earth, soil / ground / land', cf. the examples: "There is black soil under the river" [Dirr 1912: 32], "Underground there is a silver lash, what is it? (= snake)" (a riddle) [Dirr 1912: 108], "Rutul land" [Dirr 1912: 161]. According to [Ibragimov 1978], with polysemy: 'earth / clay'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29], a second term for 'earth' is quoted: čʼir {чIир}, which actually means 'grass-covered place' [Dirr 1912: 181] (cf. its Ixrek Rutul counterpart čʼir 'pasture, common' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 297]).
Distinct from ǯil ‘earth floor’ [Ibragimov 1978: 117].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Suleymanov 2003: 144. Polysemy: 'earth, soil / dust'. The same in the Khudig subdialect: rug 'earth, soil / dust' [Shaumyan 1941: 160] (apparently erroneously quoted as ruqː by Shaumyan).
Distinct from the more specific Burshag term neqʼʷ with polysemy: 'black soil / grave, tomb' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 190, 199] (the two meanings are formally discriminated in the ergative form).
Suleymanov 2003: 144; Shaumyan 1941: 160; Magometov 1970: 198 sentence 22. Polysemy: 'earth, soil / dust'. The same in other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug rug 'earth, soil; dust' [Shaumyan 1941: 160]. The old term is retained as Tpig neqʼʷ 'grave, tomb' [Suleymanov 2003: 137].
A second candidate is Tpig ǯil, but the gloss 'earth, soil' in [Suleymanov 2003: 81] seems an inaccuracy; one would expect the meaning 'ground'.
Distinct from Tpig qʼuramat 'land (opposed to water)' [Suleymanov 2003: 123].
AGX_NOTES:
The Proto-Aghul term for 'earth, soil' was neqʼʷ, probably already with polysemy: 'earth, soil / grave, tomb'. Currently neqʼʷ in its first meaning tends to be superseded by the word rug, which is originally the Common Aghul term for 'dust' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200] (an areal process influenced on the part of Tabasaran rug 'soil' q.v.).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199. 'Dust' is expressed as bišˈi rˈugu, literally 'soft soil' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200]. Distinct from Dyubek yišʷ 'place' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 218].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: rug 'earth, soil' [Uslar 1979: 898, 994; Dirr 1905: 203, 229] (specified as 'soil' by both authors). Distinct from Khanag yišʷ 'place; land, region' [Uslar 1979: 755; Dirr 1905: 180].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: rug {руг} 'earth' [Genko 2005: 133], distinct from yišʷ {йишв} 'place; land, region' [Genko 2005: 81].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199. 'Dust' is expressed as bušˈu rug, literally 'soft soil' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200]. Distinct from Kondik yišʷ 'place' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 218].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: rug ~ rugʷ {руг(в)} 'earth, soil' [Genko 2005: 133] (specified by Genko as 'soil'; the variant with gʷ is etymologically unclear). Distinct from Khiv ǯil {жжил} 'ground; floor; field' [Genko 2005: 68] and from Khiv yišʷ {йишв} 'place; land, region' [Genko 2005: 81].
Two Literary Tabasaran terms for 'soil' are known: rug {руг} with polysemy: 'soil / dust, litter' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 262] and ǯil {жил} with polysemy: 'soil / ground / land / Earth' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 162]. Distinct from Literary Tabasaran yišʷ {йишв} 'place' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 186].
TAB_NOTES:
The word rug can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'soil', opposed to ǯil 'ground' and yišʷ 'place'. In Literary Tabasaran, ǯil has undergone secondary broadening into the meaning 'soil' under the influence of similar polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian.
Uslar 1896: 541, 613. Paradigm: rug [abs.] / rukːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.]. Polysemy: 'earth, soil / dust'. Examples: "I threw some soil on the grain", "The earth of this village is good (= fertile)" [Uslar 1896: 541], "The mouse throws soil down from the ceiling" [Uslar 1896: 326], "Human eyes are filled with contentment or with earth (a person must be satisfied or dead)" [Uslar 1896: 349], "You have put a lot of earth over this roof" [Uslar 1896: 353].
Distinct from Gyune čːil [Uslar 1896: 594, 613], which means 'earth, ground, earth floor' rather than specific 'soil', according to Uslar's examples: "The earth trembled (= earthquake)", "The earth is covered with grass", "He has the earth as his mattress, the sky for cover" [Uslar 1896: 594], "I have smoothed the earth" [Uslar 1896: 411], but also "The earth of this village is fertile" [Uslar 1896: 594].
The expected Gyune word **naqʼʷ is not documented by Uslar.
Differently in Literary Lezgi: naqʼʷ {накьв} 'earth, soil' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 250; Gadzhiev 1950: 245; Haspelmath 1993: 499, 518]. A second candidate is čːil {чил, ччил} with polysemy: 'ground / soil' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 370; Gadzhiev 1950: 245; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 518]. A third term is rug [abs.] / rukːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.] {руг} with polysemy: 'dust / soil / litter' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 280] (only as 'dust' in [Haspelmath 1993: 505]). The pragmatic or semantic difference between three words for 'soil' is unclear, although naqʼʷ seems to be the most basic term in this meaning.
In the Akhty dialect: Khlyut naqʼʷ 'earth, soil' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199]. Distinct from Khlyut rug [abs.] / rukː-ˈadi- [obl.] 'dust' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200] and čːil 'earth floor' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 176].
The external comparison strongly suggests that naqʼʷ was the Proto-Lezgi term for 'earth, soil'. The word rug originally meant 'dust', but has acquired the additional meaning 'soil' - an areal isogloss shared with Aghul and Tabasaran (q.v.). Lezgi čːil denoted 'ground', but currently tends to broaden into the meaning 'soil' under the influence of similar polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian.
Proto-Lezgian:*näqʼʷ3
NCED: 848. Distribution: This stem is retained with the specific meaning 'earth, soil' in Archi, on the one hand, and in almost all Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Tabasaran, and some dialects of Tsakhur, Aghul and Lezgi), on the other.
In the Udi branch, however, *näqʼʷ has been lost, and 'earth, soil' is now expressed with the etymologically obscure form kːul. Furthermore, in Nidzh Udi, the word očˤal, whose Proto-Udi meaning was 'earth, ground', has acquired the second meaning 'earth, soil'.
In Mishlesh Tsakhur, *näqʼʷ was superseded with *čʼura (~ -o-) [NCED: 555], accompanied with the shift 'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'.
In East Lezgian, *näqʼʷ tends to be superseded with *rukː, whose original meaning was 'dust' [NCED: 603]. This is not a Proto-East Lezgian replacement, but a late areal isogloss (probably Tabasaran-induced): *rukː became the default root for 'earth, soil' in Tabasaran, many Aghul dialects (Koshan, Gequn, Fite, proper Aghul) and some Lezgi dialects (Gyune).
Reconstruction of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'earth, ground' is less obvious.
The root *čːil [NCED: 342] can be reconstructed with the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning 'earth floor' (thus Tsakhur, Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). In East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), however, this word also denotes 'earth, ground', as opposed to various terms for 'soil'. External North Caucasian comparison suggests that *čːil could theoretically be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'earth, ground'.
On the other hand, in Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the word for 'earth, ground' originates from Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) [NCED: 684]: Proto-Udi očˤa-l 'earth, ground', Caucasian Albanian ašˤa-l 'earth, ground' (the correspondence Udi čˤ ~ CA šˤ is unique, but may represent different treatments of the Proto-Lezgian consonant cluster). In the rest of Lezgian, the root got lost. Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) possesses good external comparanda with the semantics of 'earth' [NCED: 684].
Thus, the easiest solution is to reconstruct *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth, ground' and *čːil with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth floor'.
If so, *yo(m)čV 'earth, ground' must have been lost in Archi (where there is only a new adverbial formation 'on the ground') and in Nuclear Lezgian. Various terms for 'earth, ground' are attested in Nuclear Lezgian: in Proto-Tsakhur, *čʼura [NCED: 555] (with the semantic shift 'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground'); in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), etymologically obscure qʼum; in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), *čːil (with the shift 'earth floor' > 'earth, ground').
It should be noted that in some East Lezgian lects (Literary Tabasaran, Literary Lezgi), *čːil has further shifted from 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'.
Some additional meaning shifts to be noted are: *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'land' in Archi; *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'grave, tomb' in Tsakhur and Aghul (Koshan, Gequn, Fite, proper Aghul); *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'earth, ground / land' in Rutul; *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'clay' in Ixrek Rutul.
In all the aforementioned cases, the bidirectional shifts between 'earth, soil' and 'earth, ground' can be explained as influenced by Azerbaijani or Russian polysemy.
According to [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.] and [Schulze 2001: 328], with a suppletive paradigm in both dialects: uk- (present-infinitive, imperative, future) / kä(y)- (past). The synchronic roots uk- and kä(y)- are etymologically related, see notes on 'to say'.
Synchronically distinct from the suppletive verb 'to eat (subj. = animal)': =kˈukin- [imperf., imv.] / =kˈun- [inf., perf.], see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 72; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 259; Chumakina et al. 2007] (perfective =kˈunni probably < kun-tːˈe, for the nasal sandhi see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 304; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 69]). As correctly proposed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 73 fn. 51] and [NCED: 207], all the stems of both verbs originate from the "Proto-Archi" root kʷan (or rather kʷan / kʷen).
Distinct from lˈah-bo- 'to want to eat smth.' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271] (complex verb, formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 156. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 128 sub sorʕu]. Ablaut paradigm: soʡul- [imperf.] / saʡal- [perf., imv.]. Initial s= is a prefix with general semantics [Alekseev 1994: 271 f.].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 271] 'to eat' is glossed as čʼatʼ yixǝr, lit. 'flat cake, scone' + 'to be, exist' apparently due to an inaccurate Russian question to a Budukh informant: Russian collocation of the type есть хлеб means both 'to eat bread' and 'there is bread'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 883, 893; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 280; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 271. Ablaut paradigm: ox(ʷ)an- [imperf., fut.] / oxun [perf.]; thematic -a- in fut. For the forms with labialized -xʷ-, see notes on Common Tsakhur.
Labialized -xʷ- is still retained in some forms in the Mishlesh dialects (cf. fut. class 2 eːxʷan-as < *o-y-xʷan-as [Kibrik et al. 1999: 883] and causative class 4 o-t-xʷan-aʔ-u [Kibrik et al. 1999: 110], but the variant o-t-xan-aʔ-u [Kibrik et al. 1999: 165] is also attested); in other forms (like imperf. class 4 o-t-xan) xʷ has been superseded by x. In Mikik the delabialized -x- was totally levelled across the paradigm under the influence of the frequent forms with the regular development oCʷ > oC, pCʷ > pC.
Synchronically, a suppletive paradigm: class=ʔil-ä-r- [imperf.] / liʔ-i-r [perf.] / class=il-ä [imv.]. In [Makhmudova 2001: 70, 94, 98, 114, 147, 158, 209,247], the perfective and imperative stems are consistently quoted as ul-e- - contracted forms of class 3 (*w=)? In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 271], the perfective stem is quoted as luʔˤ-u- with unclear pharyngealization.
Distinct from y=ɨx- 'to eat (subj. = animal)' [Makhmudova 2001: 94] (not found in other Rutul sources).
The same verb in other subdialects: Kurag, Tsirkhe ʡutʼ-a- 'to eat' [Magometov 1970: 142, 206 sentence 11, 215 sentence 22]; Duldug Hutʼ-a- 'to eat' [Shaumyan 1941: 181]. It should be noted that for the Tsirkhe subdialect the infinitive form Hal-a-s 'to eat' is quoted in [Shaumyan 1941: 181].
AGX_NOTES:
Note the forms that retain etymological -l-: Gequn and Proper Aghul ʡal-di, Hal-a- and eventually Koshan ʡutʼ-ala-.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 155. Synchronically, a highly irregular suppletive paradigm: ˈüld-eː- (i.e. ˈü-l-d-eː- with the l-infix) [imperf.] / ˈuˤpʼ- [perf.: class 2 sg.] / ˈuˤtʼ- [perf.: class pl.] / üpʼ-ˈ [imv.: class 2 sg.] / üpʼ-ˈ [inf.: class 2 sg.] / ütʼ-ˈ [inf.: class pl.]. Class 2 sg. factually means singular object, class pl. - plural object.
Similar paradigm in the Khanag subdialect: ü-l-d- [imperf.] / uˤpʼ- [perf., imv., inf.: class 2 sg.] / uˤtʼ- [perf., imv., inf.: class pl.] 'to eat' [Uslar 1979: 938; Dirr 1905: 211, 247]. Some interesting Khanag aorist forms (class 2) are also quoted by Dirr: el-, ül-, where medial -l- is the imperfective prefix.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ˈü-l-d- [imperf.] / uˤpʼ-, uˤtʼ- [perf., inf.] {уьпIуьв} 'to eat' [Genko 2005: 159].
As proposed in [NCED: 625 f.], the variety of modern forms is explained by suggesting assimilation of the Tabasaran class infixes -b- (class 2 sg.), -d- (class pl.) with the old root glottal-stop, i.e. ipʼ- ~ ˈuˤpʼ- ~ üpʼ-ˈ < *ʔi-b-ʔ-, ˈuˤtʼ- ~ ütʼ- < *ʔi-d-ʔ-. Infixed -d- is retained in the Northern imperfective stem ü-l-d- (< *ʔi-l-d-Vʔ-?). In the Southern dialect the paradigm has been levelled after the class 2 forms (ipʼ-), although in Literary Tabasaran the class agreement has secondarily been restored: ipʼ-ˈ / itʼ-ˈ.
NCED: 207. Distribution: This root has survived only in the two outliers: Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi, where it still retains its basic status. Besides the formal distribution, external North Caucasian comparison also proves that *ʔikʷVn- was the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to eat'.
In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *ʔikʷVn- was superseded by the verbal root *ʔiʔʷäl- [NCED: 625], whose original meaning is not entirely clear (cf. its Archi cognate with the meaning 'to want to eat smth.', and further North Caucasian comparanda which mean 'to bite' or 'to feed on smth.').
Additionally, in Tsakhur, *ʔiʔʷäl- was superseded by *ʔiɬʷV(n)- [NCED: 516], which originally meant 'to graze, pasture' in Proto-Lezgian.
Dictinct from Vartashen qːˤaqːapun {къаъкъаъпун} 'fried eggs' [Gukasyan 1974: 156]; according to [NCED: 932], qːˤaqːa-pun with an unclear suffix -pun, but such an analysis is uncertain.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *QoQla with various assimilative/dissimilative variants.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:gˈenukː--1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 231, 389; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 319; Mikailov 1967: 177; Dirr 1908: 137, 227. Borrowed from Lak kːunuk 'egg' (in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed" without the source), for Pre-Lak *kːenukː see [NCED: 437].
Authier 2009: 26, 37, 40, 55, etc. It is proposed in [Authier 2009: 26, 37] to analyze it as a compound of kis 'hen' [Authier 2009: 23] (= Kryts Proper kɨs 'hen' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 75]) + χuy- 'to give birth' [Authier 2009: 122] (= Kryts Proper χuy- 'to give birth' [NCED: 576]), but the final -ntʼ seems unexplainable in this case.
Suleymanov 2003: 56; Shaumyan 1941: 191. The same in the Tsirkhe subdialect: ʁuraʁa-l 'egg' [Shaumyan 1941: 191]. Also ʁˤäräʁä-l 'egg' [Magometov 1970: 91] (without dialectal provenance, may be the Keren form).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Genko 2005: 128. The latter variant is from [Genko 2005]. A compressed compound, whose first element is pˈaʔˤ-a, obl. paʔˤ-lˈi- 'hen' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 75].
Differently in the Khanag subdialect: pelˈinʒuw ~ pelunʒuw ~ penunʒuw 'egg' [Uslar 1979: 874, 1010; Dirr 1905: 199, 247]. According to [Uslar 1979: 875], the non-compressed expression peʔlˈin liʒˈuw 'egg' was occasionally used as late as the 2nd half of the 19th century - literally 'hen's white' (peʔ, gen. peʔ-eli-n ~ peʔ-li-n 'hen'; liʒi, class 2 liʒu-w 'white' q.v.).
The same in other subdialects:Khyuryuk pelinʒuw {пелинззув} ~ peʔlˈuʒuw {пеълуззув} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 128, 129] (the first variant is erroneously quoted as peliʒuw {пелиззув} in the head of the entry), Khapil peluˤʒuw {пелюззюв} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 128].
Superseded with the loanword in the Kumi and Chuvek subdialects: murtˈa {мурта} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 123].
Southern Tabasaran:murtˈa-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123.
The same loanword in the Tinit subdialects: yumurtˈa {юмурта} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 197], and in Literary Tabasaran: murtˈa {мурта} 'egg' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 234].
An inherited word in the Khiv subdialect: gugˈu {гугу} 'egg' [Genko 2005: 37].
TAB_NOTES:
Northern Tabasaran forms of the shape pelˈinʒuw represent the recent neologism 'hen's white' (see above). Dyubek paːluχˤˈuw ~ peliχˤuw is a compressed compound of the same kind: 'hen's X', although its second part is not clear.
The forms murta and yumurta represent a borrowing from Azerbaijani yumurta 'egg'.
Khiv gugu seems to be the best candidate for the status of Proto-Tabasaran 'egg', although its external etymology is rather weak (Lezgi kːakːa 'egg' q.v.).
The same in Literary Lezgi: kːakːˈa {кака} 'egg' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 148; Gadzhiev 1950: 962; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 519].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kːakːˈa 'egg' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123].
Proto-Lezgian:*qːVlVqː1
NCED: 906. Distribution: According to [NCED], two phonetically similar roots for 'egg' enter into competition here. Both demonstrate rather irregular reflexes of assimilative or dissimilative nature.
The first one is reconstructed as *qːVlVqː in [NCED: 906]. This stem means 'egg' in Udi, on the one hand, and Rutul and Aghul, on the other. In the rest of Lezgian, the root has been lost.
The second one is reconstructed as *qʼoloqʼ in [NCED: 932]. This stem means 'egg' in Tsakhur (qʼuqʼ), 'testiculus' in Budukh, Rutul and Tabasaran (these three forms have only been found in [NCED]), 'fried eggs' in Vartashen Udi.
In three languages, both of the roots have survived. The reflexes are opposed as follows:
It should be noted, however, that Vartashen Udi qːˤaqːapun is morphologically obscure (-pun is a unique suffix) and too irregular phonetically (normally Lezgian *qʼ yields a zero reflex in Udi). It seems better to separate the Udi form from these roots: we prefer to treat qːˤaqːapun as a word of unknown origin.
If so, the descendants of the hypothetical *qʼoloqʼ mean 'testiculus' in all three Nuclear Lezgian subbranches, but 'egg' in Tsakhur. The semantic derivation 'testiculus' > 'egg' is extremely rare cross-linguistically; thus, Tsakhur qʼuqʼ would rather seem to originate from *qːVlVqː 'egg', but it must have been influenced by *qʼoloqʼ. The second solution is to unite all the aforementioned forms (excepting the Udi 'fried eggs') under one proto-root *QVlVQ 'egg' with very irregular reflexes. If so, in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *QVlVQ divided into two phonetic shapes - one retained the meaning 'egg', the other acquired the meaning 'testiculus' (the shift 'egg' > 'testiculus' is normal).
It is also likely that the discussed words for 'egg' have been influenced by various onomatopoeic forms for hen cackling, cf., e.g., Budukh qʼaɢɨldamˈi 'cackling, clucking' [Meylanova 1984: 94], etc.
In Proto-Tabasaran and Lezgi, 'egg' is expressed by *kːakːay [NCED: 429], not observed in other languages. The primary meaning of this root is unclear. It cannot be posited as the Proto-East Lezgian term for 'egg', since the Aghul language retains *qːVlVqː for this meaning. In fact, however, both Khiv Tabasaran gugˈu and Lezgi kːakːˈa may represent independent introductions of onomatopeic nature.
In Northern Tabasaran, two recent compounds are attested with the meaning 'egg', both with *paʡ 'hen' [NCED: 865] as the first element (one of them literally means 'white of hen').
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the obscure forms kusuntʼ ~ kusχuntʼ ~ kusxud 'egg' are attested. Their first element kus- also looks similar to the word for 'hen'.
Superseded with loanwords in Archi (< Lak) and some Tabasaran dialects (< Azerbaijani).
Replacements: {'white of hen' > 'egg'} (Northern Tabasaran), {'X of hen' > 'egg'} (Northern Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are rather irregular, due to various assimilative/dissimilative processes and vowel syncope.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root, maybe of onomatopoeic origin.
Common Udi *pul with an irregular paradigm in both dialects: pul [abs.] / p- [obl.] (the oblique stem is explained by the historically normal loss of -l- in the intervocalic position, [NCED: 130]).
Caucasian Albanian: pul [abs.] / pi- [obl.] 'eye' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-41].
Suleymanov 2003: 161; Shaumyan 1941: 144; Magometov 1970: 196 strophe XVI. The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Khpyuk ul 'eye' [Shaumyan 1941: 144; Magometov 1970: 223 strophe IV].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ul 'eye' [Uslar 1979: 927, 991; Dirr 1905: 209, 226]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ul {ул} 'eye' [Genko 2005: 152].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122. A collocation: bošin čːäyin = literally 'internal (bošin) butter (čːäyin)'. Expressions for 'fat' have not been found in [Gukasyan 1974] and [Mobili 2010]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310] 'grease, fat' is glossed as Nidzh zeyt {зейт}, which is an error, cf. in [Mobili 2010: 296]: Nidzh zeyt / Vartashen zet 'vegetable oil', zeytun 'olive'; a wide-spread Semitic (in our case Arabic) word with the meaning 'olive, olive oil'.
Distinct from the specific term pi 'goat's fat' [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 217, 255; Fähnrich 1999: 26] (glossed simply as 'fat' in [Schiefner 1863: 98] and [Starchevskiy 1891: 499]), which is borrowed from Azerbaijani piy 'fat, lard' or directly from Persian piːh 'fat'.
Distinct from zeyt ~ zet 'vegetable oil', ʒet 'olive oil' [Schiefner 1863: 90, 93] (an Arabic loanword, see notes on the Nidzh dialect).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 276, 359; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310; Mikailov 1967: 192. Paradigm: may [abs.] / mi-lˈi- [obl.]; the modern levelled variant miy comes from [Chumakina et al. 2007]. Polysemy: 'fat, suet / bone marrow'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310] the form šːelekul {щелекул} is also quoted for 'fat, grease' - a corrupted spelling of the masdar in -kul from the stative verb šːeˤlˈe 'to be fat (normally of food)' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 320; Chumakina et al. 2007].
Distinct from tennˈe 'layer of fat on soup; ointment' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 322; Chumakina et al. 2007] (quoted for 'dissolved grease' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121]).
Ibragimov 1978: 17, 27, 63, 117. Glossed by Ibragimov as generic 'fat, rendered fat (Russian: жир, сало)'.
A second candidate is yɨχˤ {йыIх}, which is glossed as generic 'rendered fat, fat (Russian: сало, жир)' in [Dirr 1912: 148, 190], but specifically as 'dissolved grease (Russian: топленое сало)' in [Ibragimov 1978: 224]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310], this word is erroneously quoted in the generic meaning 'fat' as yɨχ {йых}.
A second term, incorrectly quoted in the generic meaning 'fat' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310], is kuk-dɨ yak - actually a normal attributive construction with the direct meaning 'fatty meat' [Dirr 1912: 151].
Ixrek Rutul:
Not attested; only several specific terms have been found: maʔ {маъ} 'visceral fat, suet' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 185, 339], qʼɨš {кьыш} 'dissolved grease' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 167], qʼaǯir {кьаджир} 'dissolved grease' [Ibragimov 1978: 224].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 310], qʼɨš is quoted in the generic meaning 'fat'.
Luchek Rutul:
Not attested. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122], only two specific terms are quoted: maʔ 'visceral fat, suet', yɨχˤ 'dissolved grease; pitch, resin'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121; Suleymanov 2003: 130. Glossed as generic 'fat' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], but as 'visceral fat, suet' in [Suleymanov 2003] (the latter seems an inaccuracy).
Distinct from mutʼulay 'dissolved grease' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121] of Arabic origin.
Distinct from mutʼula 'dissolved grease' of Arabic origin and inherited yaχ 'fat on meat' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122].
In the Usug subdialect superseded with yaχ 'fat (in general)' [Shaumyan 1941: 147]. The old term is retained as maw 'visceral fat, suet' [Shaumyan 1941: 150].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122. Not attested in [Dirr 1907].
Distinct from mutʼulay 'dissolved grease' of Arabic origin and inherited yaχʷ 'fat on meat' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122]. Labialized uvular in abs. yaχʷ is apparently secondary, having appeared under the influence of the ergative form yaχ-u (as in some similar Burkikhan cases, e.g., *kerk > kerkʷ, erg. kerk-u 'nail' q.v.).
Shaumyan 1941: 147. Specified as 'fat (in general)'. It should be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 91], Tpig yaʁ is glossed as 'lube, machine oil' (there is no generic term for 'fat' in [Suleymanov 2003]).
We reconstruct Proto-Aghul maw as 'fat (in general)' (retained in some non-Koshan dialects) and yaχ as specific 'fat on meat' (lost in Koshan).
The original generic meaning of maw is suggested by the external Lezgian comparison. In Koshan (Burshag) maw was superseded with ħul under the influence of the neighboring Tabasaran language, where the same shift occurred. The exact proto-meaning of ħul cannot be reconstructed with certainty - ‘a k. of fat’. Cf. also Keren Aghul (Richa) ħal, Gequn Aghul (Burkikhan) ħel quoted in [NCED: 1081] as 'fat' without semantic specifications (apparently based on the unpublished field records of the MSU expedition, cf. [NCED: 13]).
Aghul forms of the shape yaχ, yaχʷ, yaʁ seem inherited (thus in [NCED: 948]), but influenced on the part of the basic Azerbaijani term yaɣ 'fat (in general)'. This concerns both phonetics (the voiced fricative in Proper Aghul yaʁ) and semantics: the shift from 'fat on meat' to the generic meaning 'fat' in Keren Aghul (Usug) and Proper Aghul (Tpig).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: χˤul {хюл} 'fat' [Genko 2005: 167]; distinct from Khiv čːem {ччем} 'melted butter, dissolved grease' [Genko 2005: 182].
Uslar 1896: 501, 611. A second generic term for 'fat', closely synonymous to the former one, is pi [Uslar 1896: 517, 611], borrowed from Azerbaijani piy 'fat, lard' or directly from Persian piːh 'fat'. Distinct from the more specific Gyune ʁerˈi 'animal oil, vegetable oil' [Uslar 1896: 385], čʼem 'butter, animal oil' [Uslar 1896: 597].
In Literary Lezgi the same two terms compete with each other: the inherited maqʼ {макь} 'fat (not dissolved)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 229; Gadzhiev 1950: 201] (glossed as 'fat' in [Haspelmath 1993: 498, 519]) and the borrowed pi {пи} 'animal fat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 264; Gadzhiev 1950: 201] (glossed as 'fat' in [Haspelmath 1993: 500, 519]).
Distinct from several specific Literary Lezgi terms: ʁerˈi {гъери} 'butter, animal oil, fat (i.e. dissolved fat?)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 93; Gadzhiev 1950: 201] (glossed as 'fat, grease' in [Haspelmath 1993: 490, 519]), čʼem {чIем} - a synonym of ʁeri [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 378; Gadzhiev 1950: 201]; qucʼur {хъуцIур} 'visceral fat, suet' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 354; Gadzhiev 1950: 201]; yaʁ {ягъ} 'machine oil, lube' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 400] (glossed as 'oil, grease' in [Haspelmath 1993: 493, 519]; borrowed from Azerbaijani yaɣ 'fat (in general)').
For the Akhty dialect two terms are quoted as synonyms for 'fat (in general)': Khlyut maʔ and qʼɨš [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122]. Distinct from Khlyut qʼacʼˈir 'dissolved grease' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 122].
The form maqʼ / maʔ must be posited as the Proto-Lezgi term for 'fat'.
Proto-Lezgian:*maʔˤ2
NCED: 794. Distribution: Retained as the generic term for 'fat' in Archi, on the one hand, and in most of the Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. External North Caucasian comparison also confirms such a semantic reconstruction for Proto-Lezgian *maʔˤ.
In Udi, *maʔˤ has been lost, superseded by *čʼːäˤm [NCED: 624], whose original meaning was 'butter', as proven by both the Nuclear Lezgian and external North Caucasian cognates, as well as the synchronic Udi polysemy 'fat / butter'.
In Keren Aghul (Usug) and Aghul proper, *maʔˤ shifted to the specific meaning 'visceral fat, suet', superseded as the generic term by *yimχː [NCED: 948]. The original Proto-Lezgian meaning of *yimχː is likely to have been 'butterfat' vel sim. (cf. its Archi and South Lezgian cognates with the meanings 'butter' and 'milk'), but for Proto-Aghul *yimχː can be reconstructed with the specific meaning 'fat on meat'.
In Tabasaran and, secondarily, in the neighboring Koshan Aghul dialect, *maʔˤ has been lost, superseded by *χˤul (χːˤ-, -o-, -lː) [NCED: 1081]. The root *χˤul apparently denoted a specific kind of fat in Proto-Lezgian, but exact semantic reconstruction is impossible (Lezgian *χˤul seems unattested outside Tabasaran-Aghul area, but external comparison points to the semantics of 'fat').
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
NUMBER:27
WORD:feather
Nidzh Udi:maǯa {маджа}1
Gukasyan 1974: 171; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216; Mobili 2010: 204. In the Vartashen dialect this stem means 'bunch of grapes' [Gukasyan 1974: 171; Mobili 2010: 204] and, more generally, 'tassel' [Schiefner 1863: 103]. A second term is qːänäd 'feather; wing' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45], which was borrowed from Azerbaijani ganad 'wing' and underwent the areal isogloss of polysemy: 'wing / feather'.
Schiefner 1863: 15, 84; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. It is not specified which 'feather' is meant (anatomic term or pen), but this word is distinct from qːaläm-uχ 'feather pen' [Schiefner 1863: 72] (< Azerbaijani gäläm 'id.', ultimately from Arabic qalam).
A second Vartashen term for 'feather', which is currently used in the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village, is posposkːal [Fähnrich 1999: 26], confirmed by Yu. Lander's field records on 2011. In [Gukasyan 1974: 189] and [Mobili 2010: 235], however, this word is explained as a kind of wild plant (Azerbaijani: xumxuma, Russian: перчий).
In [Schulze 2001: 312] the word qːänäd 'wing; feather' is quoted (an Azerbaijani loanword, see notes on Nidzh Udi), although in Bežanovs' text it is attested only with the meaning 'wing'.
UDI_NOTES:
In the light of Lezgian comparanda, it is Vartashen kuk that has a better chance to have been the Proto-Udi term for 'feather'. In this case, it is necessary to postulate the meaning shift 'tassel' > 'feather' in Nidzh maǯa and similarly 'a k. of plant' > 'feather' in Vartashen posposkːal.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216] the term qum {хъум} is also quoted for 'feather', but its actual meaning is 'down' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 298; Chumakina et al. 2007].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45. Polysemy: 'wing / feather'. In [Meylanova 1984: 83] glossed only as 'wing'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani ganad 'wing' and subject to the areal isogloss of polysemy: 'wing / feather'.
Distinct from pisi {писи}, which is glossed in [Meylanova 1984: 119, 230] as 'feather, small feather' (repeated in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216] as a basic term for 'feather'), but Meylanova's examples rather suggest the specific meaning 'down': "downy pillow", "down appears on chickens".
Ibragimov 1990: 175; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 107. Missing from [Kibrik et al. 1999]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216], the Literary Tsakhur word for 'feather' is quoted as kuk-ra {кукра}.
Tsakhur-Kum, Mukhakh-Sabunchi & Suvagil Tsakhur: kuk-ra [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45; Ibragimov 1990: 162, 175]. Final -ra is a fossilized plural marker.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45; Dirr 1913: 174, 233. Final -ra is a fossilized plural marker. It is noted in [Dirr 1913: 215] that 'feather' can also be expressed by the collocation "bird's hair" (with čʼer 'hair' q.v.).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216]. quoted as wisɨnʸ {висынʹ}.
TKR_NOTES:
From the distributive viewpoint it seems slightly more natural to assume that the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'feather' was wɨsɨn (~ wusun), which is retained both in the Takh and Gelmets dialectal groups, whereas kuk-ra is an innovation of some Tsakh dialects (Tsakhur-Kum, Mukhakh-Sabunchi & Suvagil) and "transitional" Mikik. External Lezgian etymology, however, speaks in favor of kuk-ra; in turn, wɨsɨn seems to be an interdialectal innovation of unclear origin.
Dirr 1912: 159, 197; Ibragimov 1978: 223, 282; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216. The variant with q comes from [Dirr 1912]; other sources give ɢ {къ}.
Ixrek Rutul:pɨy {пый}-1
[Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 210; Ibragimov 1978: 223]. Borrowed from the neighboring Arakul dialect of Lak: puy 'feather' [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216] (or, rather, both words represent a common loanword of unknown origin).
A second term is pʼeru {пIеру}, glossed simply as 'feather' in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 211, 372], but we suspect that pʼeru rather means 'feather pen', borrowed from Russian pʸerˈo 'feather (anatomic); feather pen'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 216], 'feather' is apparently erroneously glossed as maɢˤaɢ {макъаIкъ}.
In the Borch-Khnov dialect the word for 'feather' is ǯiʁa {джигъа} [Ibragimov 1978: 282], apparently borrowed from Azerbaijani ǯiɣa 'lock, tress; plumage (e.g., of pheasant)'.
The Mukhad-Luchek word maqˤaq is of unknown origin, but may represent the Proto-Rutul term.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45; Dirr 1907: 135, 180; Shaumyan 1941: 152. In [Dirr 1907] and [Shaumyan 1941], only the variant murcʼ is quoted; in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], both are given.
Differently in the Khanag subdialect: χil 'feather' [Uslar 1979: 951, 1001] (missing from [Dirr 1905]); distinct from Khanag zik 'down' [Uslar 1979: 701, 1003]. It should be noted that in [Dirr 1905: 171, 237] zik is glossed as 'feather' - apparently an inaccuracy.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: χil {хил} 'feather' [Genko 2005: 165]; distinct from Khyuryuk zik {зик} 'down' [Genko 2005: 71].
The same in the Tinit subdialect: zik {зик} 'feather; down' [Genko 2005: 71].
Differently in the Khiv subdialect: cʼupˈur {цIупур} 'feather' [Genko 2005: 178; Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 334]; distinct from Khiv zük ~ ʒük {зюк, ззюк} 'down' [Genko 2005: 72, 73].
Differently in Literary Tabasaran: zikʷ {зикв} 'feather' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 169]; 'down' is expressed as žʷilːˈi zikʷ {жвилли зикв} [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 169], literally 'fine feather'.
TAB_NOTES:
An unclear situation. Formally, the external comparison (cf. the Lezgi suffixed cognate cʼak-ul 'feather') could suggest that cːikʷ ~ zikʷ ~ zük ~ zik is to be reconstructed with polysemy: 'feather / down' for Proto-Tabasaran. This polysemy was retained in some Southern subdialects (Kondik, Tinit), but reduced to 'down' in Northern Tabasaran as well as in some Southern subdialects (Khiv). Out of several new words for 'feather', Northern χil 'feather' apparently goes back to the local meaning 'wing' [NCED: 1070], Dyubek ʁik is etymologically obscure, for Khiv cʼupˈur see below.
On the other hand, Khiv cʼupˈur 'feather' can be analyzed as the fossilized plural formation cʼup-ˈur, whose root etymologically corresponds to Aghul (the closet Tabasaran relative) *pincʼʷ 'feather' via consonant metathesis (for the nasal cluster simplification cf. Tabasaran pʼipʼ 'angle, corner' < Lezgian *pʼɨˤmpʼ 'knee'). In this case Khiv cʼup-ˈur continues the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'feather', whereas cːikʷ ~ zikʷ ~ zük ~ zik originates from Proto-Tabasaran 'down' (the semantics 'down' was extended to 'feather, down' in some Southern subdialects, like Kondik, Tinit, as well as Literary Tabasaran). On the contrary, in Northern Tabasaran *pincʼʷ 'feather' was lost, superseded with χil (< 'wing') or obscure ʁik.
The second scenario seems more preferable. Its main flaw, however, is that the Tabasaran plural exponent is -ar, harmonized -er, -ir [Magometov 1965: 93 ff.], not -ur, as in the assumed cʼup-ˈur.
Note that it is also possible to treat Khiv cʼupˈur as a borrowing from the neighboring Lezgi language, cf. Lezgi cʼapˈur ‘feather’ (q.v.).
There are two words for 'feather' in Literary Lezgi. The most frequent one is cʼak-ˈul {цIакул} 'feather' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 360; Gadzhiev 1950: 534; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 519]. The second, more marginal, term is cʼap-ˈur {цIапур} with polysemy: 'feather / propeller blade' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 361]. Distinct from literary tük {туьк} 'down' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 319; Gadzhiev 1950: 674], borrowed from Azerbaijani tük 'hair, fur, down'.
In the Yarki dialect (the same Kyuri group): Nyutyug cʼap-ur 'feather' [Meylanova 1964: 79].
In the Akhty dialect (Samur group): Khlyut čʷkʷ-al 'feather' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 45] (regularly < čʼʷkʷ-), Khuryug čʼakʷ-al 'feather' [Meylanova 1964: 281]. The same in some other dialects of the Samur group: Jaba čkː-ol 'feather' [Ganieva 2007: 22], Qurush čkːʷ-al 'feather' [Ganieva 2008: 33].
But in the Fiy dialect of the Samur group: cʼuw-ur with polysemy: 'feather; down' [Meylanova 1964: 394].
An unclear situation, with two terms in competition: cʼap-ˈur (in the Kyuri and Samur dialectal groups) vs. cʼak-ˈul (Samur). Both words are present in Literary Lezgi. The available dialectal data are too scant for a full-fledged distributive analysis, but cʼap-ˈur seems more preferable from the etymological point of view: cf. Aghul *pincʼʷ 'feather', Tabasaran (Khiv) cʼup-ˈur 'feather' q.v.
The rare substantive suffix with generic semantics -al is both denominal [Haspelmath 1993: 107] and deverbal [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 131]. Final -ur looks like a fossilized plural exponent, but it must be noted that synchronic Lezgi plural suffixes are either -ar or -er [Haspelmath 1993: 71; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 291].
Proto-Lezgian:*kʷik ~ *kʷimk2
NCED: 707. Distribution: An unstable word, often superseded by etymologically obscure forms or loans. Distributively the best candidate for the Proto-Lezgian term 'feather' is *kʷi(m)k. It has been retained with the meaning 'feather' in Vartashen Udi, on the one hand, and in two Nuclear Lezgian languages (Kryts and Tsakhur), on the other, having been lost in the rest of languages.
The modern Vartashen Udi word for 'feather' is, however, posposkːal, which primarily denotes a kind of plant. In Nidzh Udi, *kʷi(m)k was superseded with the etymologically unclear word maǯa, whose original Proto-Udi meaning is likely to have been 'tassel, bunch'.
In Archi, the root *cːal [NCED: 1090] with polysemy 'wing / feather' is observed. This root is isolated within Lezgian, but if the North Caucasian etymology, proposed in [NCED], is correct, this implies the shift 'fist' > 'wing' > 'feather' in Archi.
In some Tsakhur dialects (Mishlesh, Gelmets), 'feather' is expressed by the etymologically isolated root *wɨs- (~ -o-) [NCED: 1058]. In Mikik Tsakhur, the neologism 'bird's hair' is also attested for 'feather'.
In Rutul, the etymologically obscure form maqˤaq 'feather' occurs.
As for East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), the best solution here is to postulate *pincʼʷ [LEDb: #145] as the Proto-East Lezgian root for 'feather' (however, without any further etymology). It has been retained in Aghul, Southern Tabasaran (Khiv), Lezgi (Gyune, Yarki, Fiy). In Northern Tabasaran (Khanag, Khyuryuk), *pincʼʷ was superseded by *χäla (~ -lː-)[NCED: 1070], whose local meaning could be 'wing' (thus 'wing' > 'feather'). On the contrary, in Southern Tabasaran (Kondik, Tinit) and some Lezgi dialects (Akhty, Literary Lezgi), the root *cʼːämk / *kämcʼː 'down' [NCED: 1091] has acquired the meaning 'feather' (sometimes with synchronic polysemy 'feather / down').
Out of a number of etymologically obscure terms for 'feather', attested in Lezgian lects, in several cases the source of borrowing can be established: Budukh (< Azerbaijani), Borch-Khnov Rutul (< Azerbaijani), Ixrek Rutul (< Lak?).
Common Udi *ar-uχ, where -uχ is a fossilized plural exponent.
Caucasian Albanian: cʼe [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-23]. An etymological cognate of the Udi term (note that the ejective is still retained in Caucasian Albanian).
Suleymanov 2003: 194; Shaumyan 1941: 166. In [Suleymanov 2003], only the former variant is quoted. Paradigm: cʼa(y) [abs.] / cʼ-i- [obl.]. The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug cʼay 'fire' [Shaumyan 1941: 166].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cʼaʔ ~ cʼa 'fire' [Uslar 1979: 959, 999; Dirr 1905: 216, 235]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk cʼaʔ {цIаъ}, Kumi cʼa {цIа} 'fire' [Genko 2005: 176, 177].
The same in Literary Lezgi: cʼay [abs.] / cʼ-u- [obl.] {цIай} 'fire' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 360; Gadzhiev 1950: 448; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 519]. Distinct from two literary terms for 'flame, blaze (Russian: пламя)': cʼun murz {цIун мурз} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 245; Gadzhiev 1950: 540] (literally 'blade of fire') and yalaw {ялав} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 402; Gadzhiev 1950: 540] (borrowed from Azerbaijani alow 'flame, blaze').
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut cʼay [abs.] / yicʼ-ˈa- [obl.] 'fire' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 206]. The Akhty oblique stem is historically the result of metathesis < *cʼiy-.
Proto-Lezgian:*cʼay1
NCED: 354. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained with its basic meaning in all Lezgian lects.
Replacements: {'fire' > 'stone in finger-ring'} (Archi).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, assuming the metathesis cʼVy(V) > yVcʼ(V) that occurred in several lects (Archi, Akhty Lezgi). The Udi form contains the fossilized plural suffix (which seems somewhat surprising from a semantic point of view).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantival root. The oblique stems are *cʼoyɨ- and *cʼo(y)-rV- (functional difference is unclear, but the latter is attested in Udi, Archi and Nuclear Lezgian, therefore, is more likely to represent an archaism).
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 36, 389; Ibragimov 1978: 204; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 150. The palatalized variant with -ä- comes from [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006].
A second (apparently less frequent) term is murǯuχ {мурджух} 'fish' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 194, 389] (no examples found).
Luchek Rutul:baluʁ-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 87.
RUT_NOTES:
The basic term for 'fish' in Rutul dialects normally represents a borrowing from Azerbaijani balɨg, dialectal (e.g., Quba) baluɣ 'fish'.
The inherited form, which reflects the Proto-Lezgian word for 'fish', is retained in the Shinaz dialect as χˤat {хаIт} 'fish' [Ibragimov 1978: 163].
There also exists a bulk of specific dialectal forms with the meaning 'fish': Ixrek murǯuχ (see above), Shinaz miǯuruχ [Dirr 1912: 11, 160, 199], Muxrek mižruχ {мижрух} [Ibragimov 1978: 187]. These look like loanwords, but the source of borrowing is not identified.
Koshan Aghul:baluʢ ~ baluʁ-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 87; Suleymanov 2003: 38, 201; Shaumyan 1941: 167. The variant in -ʢ is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990].
For the Khanag subdialect two words are known: the borrowing balˈurχː 'fish (in general)' [Uslar 1979: 605, 1004] and the inherited term čečʼ with polysemy: 'small fish / locust' [Uslar 1979: 967, 1004]. Dirr, however, quotes only čečʼ 'fish (in general)' [Dirr 1905: 218, 241].
Similarly in the Khyuryuk subdialect: balˈurχː {балурхх} 'fish' [Genko 2005: 26]; distinct from inherited čečʼ {чечI} with polysemy: 'small fish / locust' [Genko 2005: 180].
For the Khiv subdialect two words are known: the inherited term čičʼ {чичI} 'small fish, river fish' [Genko 2005: 181] and the borrowing balˈuʁ {балугъ} 'salt-water fish' [Genko 2005: 26].
Quite differently in two subdialects of the Eteg cluster: Tinit, Dzhikhtig χˤad {хяд} 'fish' [Genko 2005: 168, 223].
Two words for 'fish' exist in Literary Tabasaran:the borrowing balˈuʁ {балугъ} 'fish' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 76] and the inherited term χˤad {хяд} 'fish' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 319] - the difference is unknown.
TAB_NOTES:
An unclear situation. Upon first sight, čičʼ ~ čečʼ (retained in both Northern and Southern Tabasaran) can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'fish'. The external comparison could confirm this solution, since Tabasaran čičʼ etymologically corresponds to Aghul (the closest relative of Tabasaran) čʼekʼ 'fish' < Lezgian *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333].
On the other hand, local Southern χˤad 'fish' (characteristic of the Eteg group of subdialects [Genko 2005: 223], but also having penetrated in Literary Tabasaran) originates from the best candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'fish': Lezgian *χˤːanː [NCED: 1078]. We suppose that Southern χˤad goes back to the Proto-Tabasaran word for 'fish', whereas the widespread Tabasaran term čičʼ ~ čečʼ 'fish' reflects later influence on the part of the neighboring Aghul language (this isogloss did not affect the Eteg group of Tabasaran subdialects, which is the most remote from the Aghul area). In such a case the original Proto-Tabasaran meaning of čičʼ ~ čečʼ could be 'locust', as proved by the Northern Tabasaran polysemy.
In some subdialects, inherited forms tend to be superseded with the borrowing from Azerbaijani balɨg, dialectal (e.g., Quba) baluɣ 'fish'. Northern Tabasaran balurχː is a corruption of the same Azerbaijani word, although the phonetic development is unclear.
In Literary Lezgi the generic term for 'fish' is balˈuʁ {балугъ} 'fish' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 58; Gadzhiev 1950: 737; Haspelmath 1993: 482, 519], borrowed from Azerbaijani balɨg, dialectal (e.g., Quba) baluɣ 'fish'. The inherited term ʁed [abs.] / ʁetː-rˈe [obl.] {гъед} shifted to the more specific meaning 'large fish' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 93; Gadzhiev 1950: 737] (glossed simply as 'fish' in [Haspelmath 1993: 490, 519]).
Only the loanword is attested in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut balˈuʁ 'fish' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 87].
Proto-Lezgian:*χːˤanː4
NCED: 1078. Distribution: An unstable term, superseded by the Azerbaijani loanword in many Nuclear Lezgian lects.
From the distributive point of view, three roots enter into competition.
1) *χːˤanː [NCED: 1078]. This root is retained in several Nuclear Lezgian languages: Proto-Rutul (attested in Shinaz), Proto-Tabasaran (attested in Eteg), Proto-Lezgi (attested in Gyune). Since *χːˤanː is descended from the best candidate for the status of the general North Caucasian term for 'fish', we reconstruct this Lezgian root with the meaning 'fish'.
2) *χˤawχay [LEDb: #262]. This root denotes 'fish' in Archi, but 'snail' in Tabasaran; no further etymology. In Proto-Lezgian, it could have denoted 'snail' vel sim.
3) *čʷiˤlä- [NCED: 532]. This root denotes 'fish' in Udi, but 'green', 'blue' and 'wet' in Nuclear Lezgian. It can actually be considered the best candidate for Proto-Lezgian 'green' (the shift 'green, blue' > 'fish' seems more natural than vice versa).
A fourth inherited root, also attested with the meaning 'fish', is *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333] (the variant *čʼeƛʼː is apparently unnecessary, because dialectal fluctuations in Aghul and Kryts seem local and late). It means 'fish' in Aghul and, secondarily, in the neighboring Tabasaran dialects (the original Proto-Tabasaran meaning of this root was, quite likely, 'locust'). Its suffixed Kryts cognate means 'green', whereas external North Caucasian comparanda suggest the meaning 'lizard' or 'frog'. An unclear situation. Maybe the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *čʼeƛʼ was indeed 'a k. of reptile' with a later shift to 'green' in Kryts, 'fish' in Aghul and 'locust' in Tabasaran.
In Rutul dialects, the forms murǯuχ ~ miǯuruχ ~ mižruχ 'fish' have no clear origin.
Replacements: {'green' > 'fish'} (Udi), {'a k. of reptile' > 'fish'} (Kryts), {'snail' > 'fish'(?)} (Archi), {'locust' > 'fish'(?)} (Tabasaran). See also notes on 'star'.
Gukasyan 1974: 190, 191 (sub pur & purpesun); Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 482; Mobili 2010: 236 (sub pur & purpesun). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], there is instead a syncopated form pur-p-sun {пурпсун}. Polysemy: 'to fall, collapse, to go to ruin / to fly, hover'.
Gukasyan 1974: 190, 191 (sub pur & purpesun); Fähnrich 1999: 26; Dirr 1903: 69; Schiefner 1863: 99; Schulze 2001: 308; Starchevskiy 1891: 486. Polysemy: 'to fall, collapse, to go to ruin / to fly, hover'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *pur-p-esun, formed with the light verb -p- 'to say, to do smth. with the mouth; to do smth. (in general)' [Schulze 2005: 565 ff. (3.4.2.2 #15 ff.); Harris 2002: 204 ff.].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 292, 365; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 482; Mikailov 1967: 196; Dirr 1908: 174, 212. According to [Mikailov 1967], with polysemy: 'to fly / to fly up'. Complex verb, formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say'. The root pˈarχː- is borrowed from Avar pˈarχː-ine 'to flit, flutter, take wing'. The old root for 'to fly' could be retained in the Archi complex verb pˈar-bo- 'to stream, fly (of flag); to flash (of lightning)' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 292; Chumakina et al. 2007]. In [NCED: 875] Archi pˈarχː- is analyzed as an indigenous form influenced by the Avar verb, but from the formal viewpoint we prefer to treat this as a loanword.
Authier 2009: 405. Paradigm: qː=anqʼʷan- [imperf.] / qː=arqʼun- [perf., imv.]. Obviously corresponds to the Kryts proper verb, although morphophonological details are not entirely clear.
Budukh:učmi yɨxǝ-r-i {учми йыхьари ~ йихьари}-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 41 (sub hundur), 54 (sub durna), 157 (sub čünglele), etc.]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 482] quoted as üčmüš siʔi {уьчмуьш сиъи}. Borrowed from Azerbaijani uč-mag (perfect stem uč-muš-) 'to fly', plus the Budukh verbs yɨxǝ- ~ yixǝ- / sǝxǝ- 'to be(come)' or siʔi- 'to do'.
Distinct from pɨr-pɨr siʔi 'to fly up, take wing', literally 'to make pɨr-pɨr' [Meylanova 1984: 120]. Further cf. pɨr-pɨr 'propeller blade; may-bug' [Meylanova 1984: 120].
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82], however, only the loanword učmɨš-x- 'to fly' is quoted, borrowed from the Azerbaijani perfect stem uč-muš- (infinitive uč-mag) 'to fly', plus the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become'.
Ibragimov 1990: 197. Imperfect stem. Labialization of χʷ is quite unclear. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 482], the future stem is quoted as alʸ=iχ-: alʸ=i-w-χ-oz {аливхоз} (this form of the class 3 does not permit to distinguish between χ and χʷ).
TKR_NOTES:
Initial Vlʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 123; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 176, 352. Polysemy: 'to jump / to jump to one's feet / to fly'. It must be noted that in [Ibragimov 1978: 194], this verb is quoted as l=äč- {лаьйчин} 'to jump'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82. Imperfective stem. Initial al=t= is historically a double spatial prefix [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.], which modifies the suppletive verb 'to go' q.v.
It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 62], Koshan ʢ=alga-na- or ʕ=alga-na- {гIалганас} (without subdialectal specification) is translated as 'to fly'. Cf. the same verb, modified with another prefix: Burshag h=alga-na- 'to run away' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 81; Suleymanov 2003: 62].
Suleymanov 2003: 62. Polysemy: 'to run, run away / to fly'. Pace [NCED: 491], may be analyzed as the prefixed stem h=iš-a- with the spatial prefix h= 'before' (for which see [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.]).
AGX_NOTES:
An unstable and poorly documented verb. Proto-Aghul reconstruction is impossible. It should be noted that all attested forms are based on the verbs for 'to go' or 'to run'.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: tʼ=iχ-ˈ 'to fly' [Uslar 1979: 922, 996; Dirr 1905: 206, 232]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: tʼ=iχ-ˈ {тIибхув} 'to fly' [Genko 2005: 148].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: tʼ=iχ-ˈ {тIирхуб} 'to fly' [Genko 2005: 149]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: tʼ=iχ-ˈ {тIибхуб} 'to fly' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 288].
Cf. Literary Tabasaran pʼurr apʼ- 'to fly up, take wing', literally 'to make pʼurr' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 256].
Uslar 1896: 499, 616. Two expressions for 'to fly' are quoted by Uslar: luw ɣu-, literally 'to give (q.v.) wing (luw)' [Uslar 1896: 499, 616] and cːaw-ˈä šu-, literally 'to go (q.v.) across the sky (cːaw)' [Uslar 1896: 580, 616]. The semantic and pragmatic difference is unclear. There is also a parallel construction cːaw-ˈä atːa- 'to come flying, to fly here', literally 'to come (q.v.) across the sky' [Uslar 1896: 580].
The same two expressions are used for 'to fly' in Literary Lezgi: luw gu- {лув гун} 'to give wing' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 225; Gadzhiev 1950: 333; Haspelmath 1993: 519] and cːaw-ay fi- {цавай фин} 'to go across the sky' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 357; Gadzhiev 1950: 333]. Cf. Literary Lezgi purr awˈu- (or pːurr awˈu-?) 'to fly up, take wing', literally 'to make purr' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 268].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiχV3
NCED: 582. Distribution: The verb 'to fly' cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
The best candidate seems the root *ʔiχV [NCED: 582], which means 'to fly' in two Nuclear Lezgian languages: Tsakhur, Tabasaran, but got lost in the rest of the lects. External North Caucasian comparison may confirm the Proto-Lezgian reconstruction *ʔiχV 'to fly'.
The second candidate is the expressive root *pVr- [NCED: 874]. It is encountered as part of complex verbs in two outliers: Udi ('to fly') and Archi ('to stream, fly (of flag)'; the generic meaning 'to fly' is expressed by the Avar loanword). Cf. also Nuclear Lezgian expressions for 'to fly up, take wing': Budukh 'to make pɨr-pɨr', Tabasaran 'to make pʼurr', Lezgi 'to make purr', which should rather be analyzed as onomatopoeic. Lezgian *pVr- also possesses external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'to fly', although verbs of the shape pVr are rather frequently attested as expressions for 'to fly' among the world's languages, and normally it is impossible to discriminate between etymological cognates and new onomatopoeic formations. For this reason we prefer to exclude Lezgian *pVr- from the list.
In Kryts, 'to fly' is expressed by the etymologically isolated =alqʼon- ~ =anqʼʷan- [LEDb: #234].
In Rutul, the old root was superseded with *ʔäča-, whose Lezgian cognates, discussed in [NCED: 283], are semantically dubious, but the original Proto-Rutul meaning of this root should be 'to jump', judging by the synchronic Rutul polysemy 'to fly / to jump' (i.e. 'to jump' > 'to fly up' > 'to fly').
In Aghul dialects, the meaning 'to fly' is expressed by various prefixed roots with the original meanings 'to go' or 'to run' (the full collocation 'to go across the sky' = 'to fly' is also attested).
In Lezgi, two collocations for 'to fly' coexist: 'to give wing' and 'to go across the sky'.
In Budukh, superseded with the Azerbaijani loanword.
Replacements: {'to jump' > 'to fly'} (Rutul), {'to go' > 'to fly'} (Aghul), {'to run' > 'to fly'} (Aghul), {'to go across the sky' > 'to fly'} (Aghul, Lezgi), {'to give wing' > 'to fly'} (Lezgi).
Gukasyan 1974: 206; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Mobili 2010: 269. Polysemy: 'leg / foot / paw'. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210], however, tur is glossed only as 'leg'.
There exists a separate specific Nidzh term for 'foot': čːil {чIил} 'foot' [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 213] (glossed as 'foot'), [Gukasyan 1974: 256] (glossed as Russian 'нога (i.e. leg with foot)'; missing from the main section of the dictionary). The origin of čːil is unclear.
Common Udi *tur 'leg / foot / paw'. Schulze's suspicions [Schulze 2001: 325] that Udi tur could be a Georgian loanword are unjustified not only from a sociolinguistic point of view, but also factologically (there is, in fact, no such word as Old Georgian tur 'foot').
Caucasian Albanian: tur 'foot' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-18]. Distinct from ʕeqal 'leg' or more specifically 'shank' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22] ("Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other").
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190, 369; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210, 212; Mikailov 1967: 172; Dirr 1908: 126, 215. Polysemy: 'leg (of human) / foot (of human) / hind leg (of animal)'. For the meaning 'leg' cf. "I have broken an arm and leg (aq)" [Dirr 1908: 126], "to break a leg (aq)" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 191; Chumakina et al. 2007] (sub áqˤas).
Distinct from the bound term moɬː-ˈol 'foot', used in some idiomatic expressions [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 281; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Chumakina et al. 2007]. Etymological evidence [NCED: 309] points to the primary meaning 'support'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210. Polysemy: 'foot / leg / step of staircase'. 'Foot' can also be expressed as qːil-i qʼän, literally 'bottom of qːil' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 31].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 876, 896; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 216; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210. Polysemy: 'foot / leg' (for the latter meaning cf., e.g., examples with "to break a leg" in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 211, 235; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 142]).
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 213], 'foot' is glossed as mɨkʼlʸi {мыкIли} - an enigmatic form (cf. mɨkʼ 'dance; kick' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 268]).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ɢelʸ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30]. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. 'Foot' can also be expressed as ɢelʸ-in xanʸe, literally 'bottom of ɢelʸ' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 31].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Dirr 1913: 150, 231. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. The meaning 'foot' can also be expressed as ʁelʸ-ɨn xanʸe, literally 'bottom of ʁelʸ' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 31].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. The meaning 'foot' can also be expressed as ʁelʸ-inʸ xanʸe, literally 'bottom of ʁelʸ' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 31].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 213], 'foot' is erroneously glossed as kʼutnʸi {кIутни}; in fact kʼutʸnʸi {кIутʹни} means merely 'end, tip', at least in Literary Tsakhur [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 205].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 66, 364. Polysemy: 'foot / leg / paw'. 'Foot' can also be expressed as ʁil-ɨd qʼen, literally 'bottom of ʁil' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 66].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 212], 'foot' is erroneously quoted as gɨl {гыл}, which actually means 'foreleg (of animal)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 58].
Suleymanov 2003: 128; Shaumyan 1941: 158. Apparently with polysemy: 'foot / leg'. Tpig läk is glossed by Suleymanov and Shaumyan as Russian "нога", which can mean 'foot', 'leg' or 'foot + leg'. Cf. the following examples for the meaning 'foot': "My foot fell into the mud" [Suleymanov 2003: 68], "Hit the ball with a foot!" [Suleymanov 2003: 104], "My foot stuck in the mud" [Suleymanov 2003: 161, 211], "A snake has crawled near my foot" [Suleymanov 2003: 165], "Don't move your feet quickly" [Magometov 1970: 196 strophe XVII]. However, no unambiguous examples for the meaning 'leg' have been found.
Two additional (more marginal) words are glossed as 'нога' in [Suleymanov 2003]: murkʼ 'нога; hoof' [Suleymanov 2003: 135] and tʼurʡ 'furniture leg; нога (disparaging)' [Suleymanov 2003: 159].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. 'Foot' can also be expressed as lik-r-ˈin kʼan, literally 'bottom of lik' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: lik ~ lek 'foot; leg' [Uslar 1979: 842, 999; Dirr 1905: 193, 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: lik {лик} 'foot; leg' [Genko 2005: 114].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. 'Foot' can also be expressed as lik-r-ˈin kʼan, literally 'bottom of lik' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: lik {лик} 'foot; leg' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: lik {лик} 'foot; leg' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218].
Uslar 1896: 474, 619. Polysemy: 'foot / leg'. This is the most generic and basic term, cf. some examples for the meaning 'foot': "I have blisters on my foot (due to chafing boot)" [Uslar 1896: 466], "The dog is lying at its master's feet" [Uslar 1896: 488], "I got my foot wet in this boot" [Uslar 1896: 526], "His foot slipped and he fell" [Uslar 1896: 586], "The boots pinch my feet" [Uslar 1896: 592], etc. A second word for 'foot' is qʼül with polysemy: 'foot / dance, dancing' [Uslar 1896: 534, 634], but it is less frequent in the anatomic meaning than kʼʷač. Two examples for qʼül 'foot' have been found: "He got under my foot (= I trod on him)", "I kicked him with my foot" [Uslar 1896: 534]. Cf. also the expression kʼʷač kʼan 'sole (of the foot)', literally 'bottom of kʼʷač' [Uslar 1896: 471].
The same basic term in Literary Lezgi: kʼʷač {кIвач} 'foot / leg / paw' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 214; Gadzhiev 1950: 426; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 522, 519]. Distinct from literary qʼül {кьуьл} with polysemy: 'foot / kick / dance, dancing' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 209] (incorrectly glossed as 'leg; dance' in [Haspelmath 1993: 504]).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kʼʷač 'foot / leg' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 30]. The meaning 'foot' can also be expressed as kʼʷač-ˈin kʼan 'bottom of kʼʷač' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 31].
Proto-Lezgian:*qːel3
NCED: 455. Distribution: First of all, it must be noted that the attested basic terms display the polysemy 'foot / leg' in all languages, except for Caucasian Albanian (the latter may be due to chance); the same polysemy should be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian.
Three Lezgian roots are equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'foot / leg' from the distributive point of view: (1) *ya(m)tur [NCED: 674], meaning 'foot / leg' in Udi; (2) *ʔaqː [NCED: 244], meaning 'foot / leg' in Archi; (3) *qːel [NCED: 455], meaning 'foot / leg' in South and West Lezgian.
Out of these, *ya(m)tur denotes 'thigh, hip' in Nuclear Lezgian, and its external North Caucasian comparanda also point to the meaning 'thigh, hip' [NCED: 674]. Thus, it is natural to posit *ya(m)tur as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'thigh, hip' and assume the shift 'thigh, hip' > 'foot / leg' in the Udi branch (in Caucasian Albanian this root is attested for 'foot').
The second root, *ʔaqː [NCED: 244], is attested with the polysemy 'leg (of human) / foot (of human) / hind leg (of animal)' in Archi and as narrower 'hind leg (of animal)' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects. The most economic solution is to reconstruct its Proto-Lezgian meaning as 'hind leg (of animal)' (with further developments in Archi).
The third competing root is *qːel [NCED: 455], which is retained in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), where it means 'foot / leg'. Distributively this should be posited as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian term for 'foot / leg', and there is no counter evidence for the same semantic reconstruction on the Proto-Lezgian level.
In East Lezgian, *qːel was probably superseded with other roots. In Aghul and Tabasaran, 'foot / leg' is expressed by *läk [NCED: 755], whose original Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'leg bone' (see notes on 'bone'). In Lezgi, the root *kʼʷarč [NCED: 733] is used for 'foot / leg'; the original meaning of *kʼʷarč is not entirely clear, but it could be 'heel, sole' (shifted to 'hoof' in Rutul-Tsakhur), as suggested by the external North Caucasian comparanda.
Cf. also recent semantic developments into 'foot' in individual lects: 'hoof' > 'foot' in Aghul Proper (murkʼ); 'furniture leg' > 'foot / leg' in Aghul Proper (tʼurʡ); 'kick; dance, dancing' > 'foot' in Gyune and Literary Lezgi (qʼül). In many Nuclear Lezgian lects, the collocations 'bottom of leg/foot' (Kryts, Tsakhur, Rutul, Tabasaran, Lezgi) or 'flat leg/foot' (Aghul) can also be used for the specific meaning 'foot'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612; Dirr 1908: 130. In [Chumakina et al. 2007] (sub ówcʼutːu) erroneously transcribed with short initial vowels, although vowel length is proven by the sound files. Polysemy: 'full, filled / satiated'. Regular participle from the verb ˈaːcʼa- 'to fill (trans.) / to be filled / to satiate oneself' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 195; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101; Chumakina et al. 2007; Mikailov 1967: 173; Dirr 1908: 130].
NCED: 526. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612] quoted as ʕacʼa-. This root is also retained in the expression for 'to become filled': ʕacʼ xi- [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101] with xi- 'to become'.
Meylanova 1984: 78 (sub kud). In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], s=ǝcʼːǝ is quoted as 'thick, portly; satiated' (intervocalic geminated -cʼː- is either a typo or the influence of the same sporadic phenomenon of the Azerbaijani language, cf., however, [Alekseev 1994: 294]). Polysemy: 'full / satiated'. Participle from the verb s=ǝcʼǝ- {сацIа} 'to become filled' [Meylanova 1984: 125; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101]. Initial s= is a prefix with general semantics [Alekseev 1994: 271 f.].
Distinct from dulu {дулу} 'full' [Meylanova 1984: 54], whose application is unknown; borrowed from Azerbaijani dolu 'full'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612], 'full' is glossed as tamamu {тамаму}, but in fact tamam means 'finished; comprehensive' [Meylanova 1984: 132], borrowed from Azerbaijani tamam 'full (in abstract sense)', ultimately from Arabic.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612], erroneously spelled as gʸ=äcɨyi-nʸ {гяцыйинʹ}. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], gʸ=äcʼʸiyi-nʸ is glossed as 'thick, portly; satiated'. Polysemy: 'full / satiated'.
TKR_NOTES:
Participle from the verb gʸ=acʼ- 'to become filled', attested in Mishlesh [Kibrik et al. 1999: 873; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 128] and Mikik [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101]. Initial gʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Dirr 1912: 120, 198; Makhmudova 2001: 167; Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 179; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 612. In [Dirr 1912: 175], the class 3 form ucʼɨ-d is also quoted as a separate entry. A prefixless participle from the labile verb h=acʼ- {ъацIас} 'to fill; to become filled' [Makhmudova 2001: 252].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241, 294. Polysemy: 'full / satiated'. Participle from an unattested verb (see the Mukhad & Rutul data).
RUT_NOTES:
Shinaz dialect: l=acʼɨ-d 'full' [Dirr 1912: 156].
Initial l=, h= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165]. Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Suleymanov 2003: 209; Shaumyan 1941: 139. The prefixless form is from [Shaumyan 1941]; according to [Shaumyan 1941] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], acʼa-r displays polysemy: 'full / satiated'.
Suleymanov's ʔ=acʼi-r is a regular derivative from the verbs acʼ-i- ~ ʔ=acʼ-i- 'to fill (intrans.); to satiate oneself' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101; Suleymanov 2003: 35, 209; Shaumyan 1941: 139] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] and [Shaumyan 1941], only the prefixless stem is quoted, Suleymanov gives both verbs; incorrectly glossed as 'to fill (trans.)' by Shaumyan). Kibrik & Kodzasov's and Shaumyan's acʼ-a-r 'full' is less clear because of the thematic -a-.
Keren Aghul:
Only the verb acʼa- 'to fill (intrans.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 101] and the participle acʼu-f 'satiated' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241] are attested.
Cf. in the Usug subdialect the regular participle acʼu-f 'full / satiated' [Shaumyan 1941: 139].
Suleymanov 2003: 209; Shaumyan 1941: 139. The prefixless form is from [Shaumyan 1941]. Polysemy: 'full / satiated'. A regular participle from the verbs acʼa- ~ ʔ=acʼa- 'to fill (intrans.); to satiate oneself' [Suleymanov 2003: 35, 209; Shaumyan 1941: 139] (probably erroneously glossed as 'to fill (trans.)' by Shaumyan).
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug acʼu-f 'full / satiated' [Shaumyan 1941: 139].
AGX_NOTES:
Initial ʔ= is the spatial prefix 'in' [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.].
Northern Tabasaran:
Not attested in any Northern Tabasaran sources. Cf. Dyubek a-class-cʼˈi 'satiated' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], which, apparently, possesses the basic meaning 'full'.
Genko 2005: 21. This is actually a form from the Khiv subdialect. Polysemy: 'full, filled / satiated'. Prosodically distinct from the paronymous Khiv adjective acʼˈu 'stout, portly' [Genko 2005: 21].
The proper Kondik term for 'full' is not documented, cf. Kondik acʼˈu 'satiated' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241], which apparently possesses the basic meaning 'full'.
TAB_NOTES:
Participle from the Common Tabasaran verb 'to fill (trans., intrans.)': Khyuryuk, Khiv, Literary Tabasaran, etc. ˈacʼ- [Genko 2005: 12, 21; Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 45].
Uslar 1896: 348, 625. Participle from the verb acʼˈu- [imperf.] / acʼˈa- [perf.] 'to fill (intrans.)'. Distinct from Gyune tuχ 'satiated' [Uslar 1896: 556, 634], borrowed from Azerbaijani tox 'satiated'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: acʼˈa-y {ацIай} 'full, filled' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 54; Gadzhiev 1950: 583; Haspelmath 1993: 479, 520], participle from the verb acʼˈu- [imperf.] / acʼˈa- [perf.] {ацIун} 'to fill (intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 54; Haspelmath 1993: 479]. Distinct from the Azerbaijani loanword tuχ {тух} 'satiated' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 318; Gadzhiev 1950: 836].
For the Akhty dialect (Khlyut), inherited acʼˈa-y is documented only in the meaning 'satiated' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 241].
Proto-Lezgian:*hˤacʼɨ-1
NCED: 525. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Lezgian lects. The root is originally verbal - 'to be full, to fill (intrans.)'. In all the languages, the adjectival meaning 'full' is expressed by participial formations. Just like the plain verb 'to be full', this root has survived in Archi and the most Nuclear Lezgian languages, but has been lost in Udi and Kryts (where 'to fill (trans.)' is a secondary factitive formation from 'full').
This basic adjective displays the polysemy 'full / satiated' in all or almost all the languages; the same polysemy 'to be full / to be satiated' should be reconstructed for the Proto-Lezgian verb (the Proto-Lezgian development 'full' > 'satiated'). In some Nuclear Lezgian lects the development 'full' > 'thick' is attested as well (Budukh, Tsakhur, Aghul).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, although reconstruction of the initial hˤ- is uncertain (Kryts ʕ- could actually be an old prefix with general semantics, the Archi vowel length can be unrelated). Thus, the reconstruction *acʼɨ- is also probable. In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the fossilized class prefix b- occurs.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with polysemy 'to be full / to be satiated'.
Gukasyan 1974: 258; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 528. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the masdar form is erroneously quoted as tːastːun {тIастIун} for tastː-un {тастIун}. The masdar tastː-un originates from *tad-sun with the regular metathesis ds > stː (for which see [Maisak 2008a: 151 f.; Schulze 1982: 90; Gukasyan 1974: 258]).
As is traditionally suggested (e.g., [Schulze 2005: 542 (3.4.2.1 #24)]) and now proven by the Caucasian Albanian data, Udi tad- is to be analyzed as *ta=d- with the preverb ta- 'thither' and the old root d- 'to give'. The latter lost its meaning in modern Udi and currently only functions as a light verb with general semantics [Schulze 2005: 572 ff. (3.4.2.2 #28 ff.)]. In all likelihood, Udi d- goes back to *day- < Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *daʁ- (with the shift ʁ > 0/y in the intervocalic position before front vowels or before consonants), which was further reanalyzed as *d-a- and levelled up across the paradigm. Quite a different analysis has tentatively been proposed in [NCED: 1034] (whose authors were naturally not aware of the Caucasian Albanian data): Udi ta-d- with the hypothetical root ta- 'to give', lacking East Caucasian comparanda.
Note also that in Caucasian Albanian the root of the present stem 'to give' is luʁ-, but it did not survive in modern Udi (as opposed to Caucasian Albanian, the Udi present forms are apparently secondary, originating from the infinitive; [Maisak 2008b: 164 ff.; Maisak 2008a: 115]).
Caucasian Albanian: A suppletive paradigm luʁ- (present) / daʁ- (infinitive, past, imperative) with polysemy: 'to give / to deliver, hand over' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44, 45, 51, IV-13]. Besides these, prefixed variants ta=luʁa- / ta=daʁ- are attested, which are closely synonymous to the plain forms in the palimpsests [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-17]. For the prefix/preverb ta= 'thither' see notes on 'to go'.
Authier 2009: 156 ff., 416. Paradigm: v=ucʼ- [imperf.] / vu(y)- [perf.] / vatu [imv.]. It must be noted that, as opposed to Kryts proper, there is no nasal imperfective in this Alyk verb.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 528. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], erroneously quoted as h=iy- {гьиез}. The future stem.
TKR_NOTES:
Both Tsakhur stems, h=elʸ-e (imperfective) and h=iw-o (perfective), apparently represent one proto-root. Initial h= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Suppletive paradigm: class=w=ɨ=l=cʼ-a-r- [imperf.] / class=w-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=w-i [imv.]. It must be noted that according to [Ibragimov 1978: 85], the modern imperative form is class=iy, where the original root consonant -w- was reanalyzed as the class 3 exponent. In [Dirr 1912], the imperfective and perfective stems are quoted with the assimilated sequence -wu- instead of -wɨ-.
Suppletive paradigm: class=ɨ=r=cʼ-ä-r- [imperf.] / class=w-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=iy [imv.]. In [Ibragimov 1978], the imperf. stem is quoted with regular -a- instead of -ä-. The imperative form is a result of secondary reanalysis, see notes on Mukhad Rutul.
The suppletive paradigms generally coincide in all dialects. Note the rare imperfective infix -l- in Mukhad and Luchek. Initial w= in the imperfective stem (Mukhad, Luchek) seems a rare (or unique) case of the prefix w= (cf. the same prefixal morpheme in the Kryts imperfective stem).
Suppletive paradigm: icʼ-an-di- [imperf.] / i-na-w [perf.] / i-s [inf.] / t-il [imv.] / ma=l=icʼ-a [prohib.]. Final -w in the perfective (aorist) form looks like a fossilized class exponent; l= in the prohibitive form is a spatial prefix [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.].
A somewhat different paradigm in the Usug subdialect: cʼ-ay- [imperf.] / g=i-ne [perf.] / cʼ-a-s [inf.] / t-in [imv.] 'to give' [Shaumyan 1941: 147]. Initial g= in the perfective form is apparently a rare spatial prefix.
Similarly in the Khiv subdialect: tː=ˈuw- ~ tː=ˈaw- {ттувуб, ттавуб} 'to give' [Genko 2005: 146]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: t=ˈuw- ~ tː=ˈuw- {тувуб} 'to give' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 282].
TAB_NOTES:
Initial dV= / tː= / t= and l= are desemanticized spatial preverbs.
Historically, a suppletive verb with two stems: l=icʼ- [imperf.] / TV=ʔuɣ- [perf.]. This paradigm was totally levelled in Southern Tabasaran and is being currently eliminated in the Northern dialect. The manifold Northern forms with ɣ and w (< ɣ) illustrate the complicated reflection of Proto-Lezgian *ƛː depending on the position, see [NCED: 134].
Uslar 1896: 398, 609. Ablaut and suppletive paradigm: ɣu- [imperf.] / ɣa- [perf.] / ce [imv.].
The same in Literary Lezgi: gu- [imperf.] / ga- [perf.] / ce [imv.] {гун} 'to give' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 89; Gadzhiev 1950: 157; Haspelmath 1993: 489, 520; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 194]. Pace [NCED: 626], the imperative stem is ce (i.e. cʰe), not cːe, as proved by both Uslar's and Haspelmath's transcription.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiƛːɨ-1
NCED: 640. Distribution:
This root has survived as the basic equivalent for 'to give' in all Lezgian lects. In Caucasian Albanian and especially in modern Udi, the reflexes of *ʔiƛːɨ- are not fully transparent. Following [Schulze 2005: 542 (3.4.2.1 #24); Gippert et al. 2008: II-71], we analyze the Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi paradigm *luʁ- [imperf.] / *daʁ- [perf.] 'to give' as *lu=ʁ- / *da=ʁ-, where the original root *ʁ- is modified by two unique prefixes lu= and da= (at least for *lu=ʁ- there is an interesting comparandum in Khinalug: lä=kʼʷi 'to give'; lä= is the Khinalug preverb 'from the speaker'). Due to phonetic mutations and morphological levellings, in modern Udi the paradigm *lu=ʁ- / *da=ʁ- has been transformed into a unified stem tad-, historically ta=d-, where ta= is the rare prefix 'thither'.
In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, the paradigm became suppletive, with the additional root *ʔicʼa- involved: *ʔicʼa- [imperf.] / *ʔiƛːɨ- [perf.]. The original meaning of *ʔicʼa- is not clear; external North Caucasian comparison suggests something like 'to compensate' [NCED: 626]. It must be noted that in Tsakhur, Lezgi and some Tabasaran dialects, this suppletive paradigm was levelled backwards in favor of the root *ʔiƛːɨ-.
Both terms, šahatː ~ šavatː and šel, are of unknown origin. The relative antiquity of Vartashen šel is proven by Caucasian Albanian šel-ihesun 'to be good, apt for smth., to suit'. Schulze [Schulze 2001: 320] suspects an Azerbaijani loan in šel (< Azerbaijani gözäl 'beautiful, nice'; incorrectly quoted as güzel 'good, nice' by Schulze), which is unjustified.
Caucasian Albanian: ey [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-14]; perhaps an important archaism (thus [Gippert et al. 2008]). Cf. also another root in šel-ihesun 'to be good, apt for smth., to suit' ("it (the salt) is thenceforth good for nothing") [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-33] with the generic verb ih-esun 'to be, become' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-19].
LEDb; Saadiev 1994: 418; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 715. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the variant ɣälä is also quoted. Looks like a loanword (the fluctuation ʁ ~ ɣ is particularly irregular, cf. also the Alyk Kryts form ɣala), but the source in unidentified.
The same in the other subdialects: Khudig, Arsug iǯe-d 'good' [Magometov 1970: 48, 92, 231 sentence 10, 234 sentence 27]. Cf. Magometov's examples: Khudig "A good man has killed the wolf", "Ibragim is a good boy", Arsug "Nowadays, roads are good".
Suleymanov 2003: 86; Shaumyan 1941: 143. Cf. the examples: "with a good figure" (said of a person) [Suleymanov 2003: 43], "Guseyni is my good friend" [Suleymanov 2003: 118], "I have a good (= interesting) book" [Suleymanov 2003: 178], "good horse" [Magometov 1970: 205 sentences 17-18].
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Kurag iǯe-f 'good' [Magometov 1970: 49, 94, 122] (cf. Magometov's example for Tsirkhe: "I know that you are a good man").
AGX_NOTES:
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Uslar 1979: 729, 1009; Dirr 1905: 175, 246. The form is actually from the Khanag subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'good' is unknown. Polysemy: 'good / nice'. Cf. Uslar's and Dirr's examples: "Make this cart good (= repaired)!", "He is a good mullah", "good man", "good water". The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: iǯˈi {ижжи} 'good' [Genko 2005: 74].
Distinct from the more specific Khanag term χuš 'good, nice, pleasant' [Uslar 1979: 955, 1009; Dirr 1905: 215, 246] ("a very nice man", "this food is pleasant for me", "nice weather", "welcome!"), borrowed from Azerbaijani xoš 'nice'.
Uslar 1896: 479, 638. Distinct from the more specific Gyune term iyˈer 'nice, beautiful; good' [Uslar 1896: 439] (according to Uslar's examples, 'nice' is the basic meaning).
The same in Literary Lezgi: qsa-n {хъсан} 'good' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 353; Gadzhiev 1950: 917; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 520]. Distinct from literary iyˈer {иер} 'nice, beautiful; good' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 134; Gadzhiev 1950: 917; Haspelmath 1993: 492] and qːenˈi {къени} 'kind, good (of person); fully functional, operational' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 186] (incorrectly glossed simply as 'good' in [Haspelmath 1993: 502, 520]).
Final -n in qisˈe-n ~ qsa-n is an adjectival suffix, see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 139 f.]; historically it is a genitive exponent that modifies the substantive stem.
Proto-Lezgian:*yukːɨ-6
NCED: 643. Distribution: A highly unstable word; the Proto-Lezgian term cannot be reconstructed with certainty. The root *yukːɨ- [NCED: 643] denotes 'good' in Tsakhur and 'right (spatial)' in Shinaz Rutul (according to [NCED: 643], based on the unpublished MSU recordings), having been lost in the rest of Lezgian. We prefer *yukːɨ- as the Proto-Lezgian equivalent for 'good' for two reasons. First, it finds reliable North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'good'. Second, the Caucasian Albanian form ey could originate from *yukːɨ-, if we assume the development *-kː- > -y-, as in modern Nidzh Udi (but not in Proto-Udi) [NCED: 125]. The latter argument is, however, weak, since Caucasian Albanian historical phonetics requires additional investigation.
In Rutul, the meaning 'good' is expressed by the root *HVχːʷV [NCED: 620], whose original meaning must have been something like 'kind, beautiful' (this follows from its cognates in other Lezgian languages: 'kind' in Archi, 'handsome, beautiful' in Aghul).
In Lezgi, 'good' is derived from the substantive root *qɨs(a) 'part, property' [LEDb: # 48] (cf. its meaning 'goods, possessions' in Archi, 'part' in Aghul).
In Archi, superseded by *pːVhˤV- ~ *hˤVpːV- 'big' (see notes on 'big').
In Vartashen Udi, šel 'good' apparently originates from the meaning 'good for smth., apt for smth.', as suggested by its Caucasian Albanian cognate.
In Aghul-Tabasaran, 'good' is expressed by *ʔičːV-, which is missing from the rest of Lezgian (some hypothetical external North Caucasian comparanda are proposed in [NCED: 248]).
Reconstruction shape: Tsakhur-Rutul correspondences are regular.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be good'.
NUMBER:35
WORD:green
Nidzh Udi:yäšil {йаьшил}-1
Gukasyan 1974: 126; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675; Mobili 2010: 293. Cf. also the variant yešil in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani yašɨl 'green'.
Distinct from däy(i) {даьй(и)} 'unripe; raw; green' [Gukasyan 1974: 109; Mobili 2010: 97] (this is, however, not the basic Nidzh term for 'green', according to data in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990; Comrie & Khalilov 2010]).
Vartashen Udi:gog-in-1
Dzheiranishvili 1971: 220; Fähnrich 1999: 16; Schiefner 1863: 86; Starchevskiy 1891: 492, 493. Polysemy: 'green / blue' (although in [Dzheiranishvili 1971] glossed only as 'green'). Quoted as gög 'green / blue / sky' in [Schulze 2001: 279]. According to Yu. Lander's field records from the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village on 2011, this is currently the default word for 'green'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani *gög (> Modern göy) 'green / blue / sky'.
Two other (inherited) terms for 'green' found in the sources are:
The exact difference between gog-in, dχi and däy is unclear.
UDI_NOTES:
Not reconstructible.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested. Cf. dai 'wet, marshy (vel sim.)' attested in dai-χunʸ 'marsh-meadow' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-21, IV-13], which is an etymological cognate of the modern Udi term discussed above. Further postulation of the meaning 'green' for dai on the basis of the word daizde 'gold' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-73, IV-13] is uncertain.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675. In [NCED: 333] the variant čʼuk-nu is also quoted. The suffix -nV is attested in some other nominal stems, but its synchronic semantics and function are unclear.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 871, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 402. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675], erroneously quoted as čɨwa-n {чыван}. Polysemy: 'green / wet'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675], the word kʼatɨpe-n {кIатыпен} is also quoted as a synonym - an error for the presumed kʼatɨlʸe-n {кIатылен}, cf. Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur below.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 675], the modern depharyngealized variant is quoted: čiwa-nʸ {чиванʹ}. Polysemy: 'green / wet'.
TKR_NOTES:
It is unclear how the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'green' should be reconstructed. Tsakhur-Kum kʼatlʸe-n and literary kʼatɨlʸe-n can represent an archaism, because the development 'wet' > 'green' is attested cross-linguistically, whereas 'green' > 'wet' seems less normal (in this case čiˤwa-n is the Proto-Tsakhur word for 'wet'). On the other hand, kʼatlʸe-n and kʼatɨlʸe-n are isolated and etymologically obscure forms; therefore, they could reflect a loanword of unknown origin.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235; Suleymanov 2003: 53; Shaumyan 1941: 191. It must be noted that in both [Suleymanov 2003] and [Shaumyan 1941], this word is quoted as ʁaze-r {гъазер}.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: čirˈi 'green' [Uslar 1979: 968, 994; Dirr 1905: 218, 229]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: čirˈi {чири} 'green' [Genko 2005: 181].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: čru {чру} 'green' [Genko 2005: 181]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: čurˈu {чуру} 'green' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 339].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qːacːˈu {къацу} 'green' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 183; Gadzhiev 1950: 245; Haspelmath 1993: 501, 520]. Distinct from literary kal {кал} 'unripe' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 148; Gadzhiev 1950: 245], borrowed from Azerbaijani kal 'unripe'.
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːacːˈɨ 'green' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 235].
Derived from an old substantive, attested as Gyune qːaʒ [abs.] / qːacː-ˈu- [obl.] 'corn shoots' [Uslar 1896: 484] and Literary Lezgi qːaz [abs.] / qːacː-u- ~ qːacː-adi- [obl.] {къаз} 'green corn shoots' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 175; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 384] (there is also a literary substantive qːaz [abs.] / qːaz-di- [obl.] 'green color; green dye; green yarn' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 175; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 384], which possesses more generic semantics, but nevertheless looks like a late back-formation due to secondary -z- in the oblique stem).
Proto-Lezgian:*čʷiˤlä-3
NCED: 532. Distribution: An unstable word. Several equivalent (from the distributional point of view) candidates enter into competition. Out of these, we choose *čʷiˤlä- [NCED: 532] as the most likely Proto-Lezgian root for 'green'. It retains the basic meaning 'green' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul). Note the polysemy 'green / wet' in Tsakhur (implying a recent shift 'green' > 'wet'). In Udi, *čʷiˤlä- has produced the basic term for 'fish' (see notes on 'fish'). In Budukh, *čʷiˤlä- has shifted to the meaning 'dim, muddy'; in Aghul, to the meaning 'blue'. An important advantage of *čʷiˤlä- over its competitors is that *čʷiˤlä- possesses good North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'green'.
In archaic Udi, dχi 'green' and däy 'green / blue' are likely to have been derived from the verbal root *ʔäɬar- 'to be wet, soaked' [NCED: 277]. Note the additional shift of däy to 'unripe; raw' in Nidzh Udi.
In Kryts, 'green' is a suffixal derivation from the root *čʼeƛʼ [NCED: 333], whose original meaning is likely to have been 'a k. of reptile', see notes on 'fish'.
In Aghul and Lezgi (this could be either a Proto-East Lezgian feature or a late areal isogloss) 'green' is derived from the substantive *qːac: (oblique *qːacːɨ-) [NCED: 464], whose original Proto-Lezgian or at least Proto-East Lezgian meaning is unclear: in Aghul, it denotes 'green color; green dye; green yarn', but specifically 'corn shoots' in Lezgi, whereas external North Caucasian comparison suggests the initial meaning 'dirt'.
In Tabasaran, the old root was superseded with *čirV- [NCED: 554], which originally denoted 'a k. of light color' (cf. its meaning 'blond, red-haired' in Aghul and 'variegated', 'yellow', 'grey' and so on in other groups of the North Caucasian family).
Etymologically unclear forms include: Archi oˤlˈow ~ uˤlˈuw 'to be green' (cf. [NCED: 537]), Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur kʼatlʸe-n 'green'.
In modern Udi and Budukh the old word is superseded with the Azerbaijani loanwords.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 214, 353; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 178; Mikailov 1967: 205; Dirr 1908: 194, 205. Polysemy: 'hair / a single hair'.
Distinct from qʼamˈa-tːu 'woman's hair, long hair' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 301; Chumakina et al. 2007] from qʼam 'forelock; mane' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 301].
Dirr 1912: 145 (sub irdɨ); Ibragimov 1978: 114. Polysemy: 'hair / a single hair'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 178], 'head hair' is glossed with two synonyms: čʼar, qʼulid {чIар, кьулид}. The second word is, in fact, the genitive form of qʼul 'head'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42. Polysemy: 'head hair / a single hair / (goat's) fur'. Distinct from Dyubek kuš 'long woman hair (sg., pl.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: čʼar 'hair' [Uslar 1979: 972, 990; Dirr 1905: 218, 225]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: čʼar {чIар} 'hair' [Genko 2005: 185].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42. Polysemy: 'head hair / a single hair / (goat's) fur'. Distinct from Kondik kuš 'long woman hair (sg., pl.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 42].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: čʼar {чIар} 'hair' [Genko 2005: 185]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: čʼar {чIар} 'hair' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 341].
Uslar 1896: 596. Polysemy: 'head hair / a single hair'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: čʼar {чIар} 'hair' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 377; Gadzhiev 1950: 98; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 520].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čʼar with polysemy: 'hair / goats's fur (pl.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41, 42].
Proto-Lezgian:*čʼaˤr2
NCED: 378. Distribution: This root is retained as the basic expression for 'head hair / a single hair' in Archi, on the one hand, and in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. Apparently in all the aforementioned languages, this word also denotes 'human body hair'. The polysemy 'human hair / goat's fur' is either a Proto-Nuclear Lezgian feature or a late areal isogloss. External North Caucasian comparison confirms *čʼaˤr as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'head hair'.
In Udi, *čʼaˤr was superseded with *pVpːV-, whose original meaning was something like 'soft, fluffy hair' [NCED: 865]. On the contrary, in Caucasian Albanian, 'hair' is expressed by the etymologically obscure stem ikuˤ.
Gukasyan 1974: 137; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207; Mobili 2010: 168. It is not clear from the gloss in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] whether this term denotes 'hand' only, or 'hand / arm'. Quoted only as 'hand' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207]. Glossed as ambivalent 'рука (= hand + arm)' in [Gukasyan 1974; Mobili 2010].
There also exists a separate term aˤm {аъм} 'arm; wing' [Gukasyan 1974: 58; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204; Mobili 2010: 115].
Distinct from maχˤa {маъхаъ} with polysemy ‘handful / palm of hand’ [Gukasyan 1974: 172].
Gukasyan 1974: 137; Fähnrich 1999: 19; Dirr 1903: 15, 22, 28; Schiefner 1863: 84; Schulze 2001: 290; Starchevskiy 1891: 506. Polysemy: 'hand / arm'. Explicitly glossed only as 'hand' in [Schiefner 1863; Fähnrich 1999] (there is no separate term for 'arm' in these two sources), [Schulze 2001] (although the texts from [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] demonstrate the generic meaning 'hand / arm'), and as ambivalent 'рука (= hand + arm)' in [Gukasyan 1974; Dirr 1903].
Distinct from aˤm, which is translated as 'wing; shoulder; side' in [Schiefner 1863: 76] and incorrectly as 'arm; pole, thills; door wing' in [Schulze 2001: 251] (in fact, the meaning 'arm' is unattested in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], the only anatomic meaning of aˤm attested in this source is 'shoulder').
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kul with an irregular paradigm in both dialects: kul [abs.] / k- [obl.] (the oblique stem is explained by the historically normal loss of -l- in the intervocalic position, [NCED: 130]). Cf. Nidzh köyi {коьйи}, Vartashen koy {кой} ‘sleeve’ [Gukasyan 1974: 136], historically derived from Proto-Udi *kul.
Caucasian Albanian: kul [abs.] / kul- ~kuy- [obl.] [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-42]; no expression for 'arm' is attested.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 259, 379; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207; Mikailov 1967: 185; Dirr 1908: 159, 220. Suppletive paradigm: kˈul- [abs., erg.] / kurˈa [loc.] / kˈur-ʁul [pl.]. Explicitly glossed as 'hand' in the aforementioned sources (with polysemy: 'hand / door handle').
Distinct from χol 'arm / branch (of tree)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Dirr 1908: 190, 220]. The latter is explicitly glossed as 'arm' in the aforementioned sources. In turn, in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 333, 379; Mikailov 1967: 200] χol is translated as ambivalent 'рука' (i.e. 'hand + arm'). It is interesting that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26] χol is explicitly quoted with the meaning 'arm + hand'.
Note also that in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204, 207] it is kul which is proposed both for 'hand' and 'arm' (χol is not quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] at all).
Browsing through available texts clearly suggests that kul is the default term for 'hand' in Archi (e.g., "Don't touch it with your hand" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 36] and so on). The only found context for 'arm' contains the word χol: "I have broken an arm (χol) and leg" [Dirr 1908: 126].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26, 27. Actually, two terms enter into competition: χäb and kɨl, and Kibrik & Kodzasov's data is somewhat equivocal. Both χäb and kɨl are explicitly treated as generic terms for 'hand + arm' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26], but in the specific entry 'hand (Russian: кисть руки)' only Kryts χäb is quoted [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27]. Keeping in mind some peculiarities of this dictionary concerning the discussed anatomic terms (cf., e.g., notes on Archi), we provisionally prefer to assume χäb as the default Kryts word for 'hand'. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204, 207] only χäb is proposed both for 'arm' and 'hand' (kɨl is not quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] at all).
Authier 2009: 33, 55, 68, 82, 118, 120, etc. This is opposed to kil 'arm' [Authier 2009: 34, 59, 106, 119], although there are some contexts, where χab demonstrates the meaning 'arm': "to break an arm" [Authier 2009: 344].
According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26], another word for 'hand' is kɨl {кыл} with polysemy: 'arm / hand / sleeve / handle'. An example in [Meylanova 1984: 80] confirms the meaning 'hand' for kɨl: "to take one's hand", literally "getting hand in hand". It seems, however, that kɨl is a statistically less frequent expression for 'hand' than χab. Cf. several examples for χab 'hand' in [Meylanova 1984: 143] as well as in other sources, e.g., "The stick hurt my hand" [Talibov 2007: 76], "The human right hand is bigger/stronger/longer than the left one" [Talibov 2007: 97, 118, 185], "Mother pulled her child's hand" [Talibov 2007: 181], "A human looks at the face, an animal looks at the hand" [Talibov 2007: 276], "Hand of an arrogant man creates nothing" [Talibov 2007: 283].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 204, 207], χab is erroneously quoted as 'arm', whereas 'hand' is erroneously glossed by two "synonyms": kʼurkʼučʼ and kɨl. In fact kʼurkʼučʼ means 'brush, tassel' [Meylanova 1984: 99], and the underlying expression of Comrie & Khalilov's gloss "kʼurkʼučʼ, kɨl" was apparently a genitive construction 'tassel of arm' - a mechanical translation of Russian кисть руки 'tassel of arm', which is the designation of 'hand' in scientific Russian.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207], 'hand' is quoted as patak {патак} - an error for pataχˤ {паIтах} or pataqˤ {паIтахъ} (cf. data from other dialects). Apparently the same term is reflected as partʸaqˤ {паIртяхъ} (sic!) 'paw' in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 285].
There also exists a specific term for 'forearm': guč [Kibrik et al. 1999: 875; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 124].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: χɨlʸ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26]. The specific term for 'hand' is pataχˤ, with the polysemy: 'paw / hand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27]. There also exists a specific term for 'arm': guč [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26].
The specific term for 'hand' is pataχˤ, with the polysemy: 'paw / hand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27] (in [Dirr 1913: 193] only with the meaning 'paw').
There also exists a specific term for 'arm': guč [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26]. According to [Dirr 1913], however, guč denotes 'forearm' [Dirr 1913: 149], whereas 'upper arm' is expressed as kʼɨr [Dirr 1913: 178] (the exact phonetic shape of the latter word is unknown).
The specific term for 'hand' is pataqˤ, with the polysemy: 'paw / hand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27]. There also exists a specific term for 'arm': guč [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26].
Distinct from perx {перхь} with polysemy 'hand / paw' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 207] (this is quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 207] as the only term for 'hand').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26; Magometov 1970: 23; Suleymanov 2003: 55; Shaumyan 1941: 191. In [Magometov 1970], transcribed as χːil - an important archaism. Polysemy: 'hand / arm'.
There also exists a more specific term for 'hand': gap [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27], which etymologically corresponds to the words for 'palm of hand' in some other Aghul dialects: Gequn gap, Fite gap [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 28]. External Lezgian etymology could confirm that 'palm of hand' is the primary meaning of this word. In Burshag, the meaning 'palm of hand' is expressed analytically as kːalan yiqʼˤ, literally 'back (anatomic) of kːal' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 28].
Suleymanov 2003: 55; Shaumyan 1941: 191. Tpig ʁil is glossed by Suleymanov and Shaumyan as Russian "рука", which can mean 'hand', 'arm' or 'hand + arm'. The standard Aghul polysemy 'hand / arm' of ʁil is proved by the following examples: "to run one's hand over the horse" [Suleymanov 2003: 21], "I have five fingers on my hand" [Shaumyan 1941: 54], "There is a bracelet on woman's arm" [Shaumyan 1941: 35].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: χːil 'hand, arm' [Uslar 1979: 957, 1004; Dirr 1905: 216, 241]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk, Kumi χːil {ххил} 'hand, arm' [Genko 2005: 168].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: χil {хил} 'hand, arm' [Genko 2005: 164]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χil {хил} 'hand, arm' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 316].
TAB_NOTES:
Note the retention of tense fricative χː in the Northern subdialects.
Uslar 1896: 386, 630. Polysemy: 'hand / arm'. 'Palm' is expressed analytically as ʁilin čːin 'face of ʁil' [Uslar 1896: 386].
The same in Literary Lezgi: ʁil {гъил} 'hand / arm' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 94; Gadzhiev 1950: 735; Haspelmath 1993: 490, 520]. There are also two specific literary terms for 'hand': kːap with polysemy: 'hand / handful / chunk of bread' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 150] (inaccurately glossed as 'palm of the hand' in [Haspelmath 1993: 494]) and paronymous kːap-aš 'hand / handful' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 150]. 'Palm' is expressed analytically as kːapan yuqʼ 'centre of kːap' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 150].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut χil 'hand / arm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26]. There is also a specific Khlyut term kːapː-ˈač with polysemy: 'paw / hand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 27].
Proto-Lezgian:*kʷil1
NCED: 706. Distribution: There are three main roots attested with the meaning 'hand' in Lezgian languages. The data can be summarized as follows:
'HAND'
Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*kʷil [NCED: 706]
hand/arm
hand
hand/arm
arm / hand / sleeve / handle
elbow (suffixed)
branch, cluster
twig, vine
branch, cluster
*χːɨl [NCED: 895]
arm
hand / arm
hand / arm
hand / arm
hand / arm
hand / arm
*mːaχː [NCED: 819]
handful / palm of hand
hand/arm
hand
armful
armful
handful
Although there can hardly be any doubt about *kʷil as the main Proto-Lezgian root for 'hand', the exact details are not entirely clear.
The easiest solution is to propose the lexical opposition 'hand' / 'arm' for Proto-Lezgian, despite the fact that such an opposition is atypical for the attested Lezgian lects and that the reconstructed syncretism 'foot / leg' (see notes on 'foot') could contradict the opposition 'hand' / 'arm'. The aforementioned roots can be reconstructed with the following meanings:
1) *kʷil 'hand';
2) *χːɨl 'arm';
3) *mːaχː (metathesized *χːamː in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian) 'handful'.
The root *χːɨl was lost in Udi, where *kʷil acquired the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'); in Caucasian Albanian, *kʷil denotes 'hand', but no word for 'arm' is attested.
In the second outlier, Archi, the opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' is retained (the third root *mːaχː was lost).
Apparently, the opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' / *χːamː 'handful' was still retained in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian as well, but was subsequently eliminated in individual subgroups in different ways.
In Proto-South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), *kʷil acquired the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'), whereas the old root for 'arm', *χːɨl, got lost - the same process as in the Udi branch. The root *χːamː in the meaning 'hand' seems to have been a relatively recent introduction ('handful' > 'hand'); we suppose that it is an areal isogloss, which is currently affecting Kryts and Budukh dialects. It is very likely that the new term *χːamː 'hand' tends to completely supersede the old term *kʷil in modern Kryts and Budukh. As a result, *χːamː acquires the additional meaning 'arm' ('hand' > 'arm'). Note also the development 'arm / hand' > 'sleeve' and 'arm / hand' > 'handle' in Budukh.
In Proto-West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Proto-East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), the old opposition *kʷil 'hand' / *χːɨl 'arm' was eliminated in favor of the latter root, i.e., *χːɨl started to denote 'hand / arm' ('arm' > 'hand'). It must be noted, however, that the tree topology and certain semantic shifts (for which see below) suggest that such an elimination was an independent development in Proto-West Lezgian and Proto-East Lezgian or, rather, an areal isogloss, which affected both protolanguages.
The old root *kʷil 'hand' survived in West Lezgian as the suffixed form 'elbow' (Rutul); such a semantic shift seems, however, somewhat surprising. The anatomic semantics of *kʷil was lost in Proto-East Lezgian, where this root acquired the meaning 'branch, cluster' (with the further shift > 'twig, vine' in Tabasaran).
External North Caucasian comparison confirms the Proto-Lezgian reconstructions *kʷil 'hand' [NCED: 706] and *mːaχː 'handful' [NCED: 819]. As for Proto-Lezgian *χːɨl 'arm', its Lak cognate denotes 'wing' [NCED: 896]; it seems that typologically the semantic shift between 'arm' and 'wing' can occur in both directions.
Finally, some peculiarities should be noted. In Shinaz Rutul and Koshan Aghul, 'hand' can be expressed by the root *kːap ~ *kːapː, whose Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'palm of hand' [NCED: 298]. In Tsakhur and Rutul dialects, the words for 'paw' can acquire the specific meaning 'hand'. Udi köyi ~ koy 'sleeve' provides an additional instance for the development 'hand / arm' > 'sleeve'.
Common Udi *bul with an irregular paradigm in both dialects: bul [abs.] / b- [obl.] (the oblique stem is explained by the historically normal loss of -l- in the intervocalic position, [NCED: 130]).
Caucasian Albanian: bul [abs.] / bi(y)- [obl.] 'head / top / beginning / self' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 10; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 257, 355; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 185; Mikailov 1967: 184; Dirr 1908: 157, 206. 'Head of man'.
Distinct from oˤnt 'head (of woman or animal); head (of onion etc.); top (of mountain); chief, ringleader' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 10; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290, 355; Dirr 1908: 171].
The old root for 'head' is retained in the adverb ʼil-lˈi-ʼ 'under one's head' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 269] (-lˈi- is the frequent oblique stem marker [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 16], - is the sublative ending [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 52]).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 880; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 185; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 185. Borrowed from Azerbaijani källä 'head' (ultimately from Persian kalla 'head'). According to examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999], this is currently the default word for 'human head' in Mishlesh.
Additional synonyms include the inherited wukʼulʸ {вукIулʹ} [Kibrik et al. 1999: 889, 892; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 107] and the borrowed baš 'head' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 870] (< Azerbaijani baš 'head').
Distinct from kalːe 'head (of large cattle)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 10], borrowed from Azerbaijani källä 'head' (ultimately from Persian kalla 'head').
Borch-Khnov dialect: yuqʼul 'head' [Ibragimov 1978: 234, 239, 281]. For the Borch-Khnov dialect, an unclear word gɨʁˤ {гыIгъ} 'head' is also quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 228].
All the dialectal forms - qʼul, huqʼul, wɨqʼɨl, yuqʼul - are etymologically related.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: kʼul with polysemy: 'head / ear (of cereals) / nipple, teat / hill, top (of mountain)' [Uslar 1979: 800, 992; Dirr 1905: 190, 226]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼul {кIул} 'head' [Genko 2005: 112].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: kʼul {кIул} with polysemy: 'head / ear (of cereals) / nipple, teat / top (of mountain)' [Genko 2005: 112]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: kʼul {кIул} with polysemy: 'head / chief / ear (of cereals) / top (of mountain)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 214].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼil {кьил} with polysemy: 'head / chief / ear (of cereals)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 203; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Haspelmath 1993: 503, 521]. Distinct from the rude word kelːe {келле} 'head' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 155; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Haspelmath 1993: 521], borrowed from Azerbaijani källä 'head' (ultimately from Persian kalla 'head').
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʼil with polysemy: 'head / ear (of cereals)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 10].
Proto-Lezgian:*woƛʼul1
NCED: 1041. Distribution: This stem is attested as the basic term in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in all Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other. The locative form of *woƛʼul is also retained as the Archi adverb 'under one's head'.
In Archi, *woƛʼul was superseded by *kʷɨltʼ- ~ *kʼʷɨlt- [NCED: 695], which is a good candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'temple'. This word means 'temple' or 'cheek' in Nuclear Lezgian (thus 'temple' > 'cheek'); external North Caucasian comparison could also point to the meaning 'temple'.
Note some specific semantic shifts of *woƛʼul 'head', reflected as synchronic polysemy in individual lects: 'point, spike' (Nidzh Udi), 'beginning', 'button', 'north' (Vartashen Udi), 'top', 'self' (Caucasian Albanian), 'ear (of cereals)' (Kryts Proper, Northern Tabasaran, Lezgi), 'lid, cover' (Budukh), 'hill' (Gequn Aghul, Tabasaran), 'nipple, teat' (Tabasaran).
The inherited term tends to be superseded with Azerbaijani or Persian loanwords in some Tsakhur, Rutul and Lezgi dialects.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, except for the sporadic syncope of the first syllable in some languages.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. Historically *woƛʼu-l with the common nominal l-suffix. If Udi ber 'pillow' does indeed originate from *woƛʼV-rV (thus in [NCED: 1041]), the suffix -l can be singled out on the Proto-Lezgian level.
Common Udi *i-bak-esun; derived from the root i plus the light verb -bak- 'to be(come)' [Schulze 2005: 561 f. (3.4.2.2 #10); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. The Udi verb corresponds to Caucasian Albanian ih-esun 'to hear'. Both CA ih and Udi i go back to Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *iχ(i)- with the shift χ > h > 0 in the intervocalic position before front vowels or before consonants. The Udi morpheme i is quoted as a separate word with the meaning 'hearing, ability to hear (Russian: слух)' in [Gukasyan 1974: 127; Mobili 2010: 152], although it is unclear whether this i can function as an independent item or if it has been extracted from the verb 'to hear' by Gukasyan.
Expressions for 'to hear' and 'to listen' are clearly opposed in modern Udi, as well as in Caucasian Albanian. Verbs for 'to hear' contain the old verbal root *ʔeɬɨ- (~ -ɬː-): Udi i-bak-sun, CA ih-esun, both forms regularly without pharyngealization. Expressions for 'to listen' are based on the word for 'ear': Udi umuχˤ / imuχ laχsun, lit. 'to put the ear' [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 665; Gukasyan 1974: 166; Starchevskiy 1891: 488], CA ʕi-biqʼ-esun, lit. 'to take the ear', normally with pharyngealization (for the Caucasian Albanian secondary ʕi- instead of expected **ʕim- see notes on 'ear').
Caucasian Albanian: ih-esun [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21], a cognate of the Udi term. Distinct from ʕi-biqʼ-esun 'to listen to / to obey / to follow, observe, endure, take on' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22], which is based on the secondary morpheme ʕi 'ear' (q.v.) plus the light verb -biqʼ- 'to seize' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-43, IV-10].
Distinct from oy ˈača- 'to listen; to obey', lit. 'to use the ear' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 287; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 665] and ˈoɬːa- 'to be silent; to listen' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 172. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 132 sub tarp, 133 sub telfun, etc.].
Distinct from ibir qːusu- {ибир къусу} 'to listen', literally 'to put ear, to cover with ears' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173; Meylanova 1984: 63; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 665].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 664], 'to hear' is incorrectly glossed as ibira qːusu {ибира къусу} - an error for ibir qːusu 'to listen'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 875, 899; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 210; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 664. Ablaut paradigm: qː=iːxʸ-e < *qː=iyxʸ-e [imperf.] / qː=ayx-ɨ [perf.] / qː=ayxʸ-es [fut.]. In [Kibrik et al. 1999: 875], the imperf. stem is incorrectly quoted as qː=ixʸ-e [imperf.] with short -i-; the correct form with -iː- can be found in examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 572, 692].
Distinct from kʼɨr gʸaqː- 'to listen; to obey', literally 'ear + to show' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 881; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 127].
Dirr 1912: 174, 200; Makhmudova 2001: 149, 167, 251. Literally 'sound happens to X' with un 'sound' + the suppletive verb class=ik- / class=iš- / class=ruʔ- 'to become' (y= is the class 4 exponent). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 664], erroneously quoted as ul y=iš- {ул йишин} (literally ul 'eye' + 'to become').
Distinct from un y=ɨχˤ- {ун йыхIыс} 'to hear about, find out (Russian: прослышать)' [Makhmudova 2001: 99], literally un 'sound' + the verb y=ɨχˤ- '?'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 255, 394; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 664. Literally un 'call, appeal' + the verb y=ɨχˤ- '?' (the exact syntactic construction is not documented).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 172. Literally un 'sound' + the verb ečʼʷ- '?' (the exact syntactic construction is not documented).
Distinct from q=as-ɨ- 'to listen' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173].
RUT_NOTES:
All the dialects demonstrate an analytic construction with un 'sound' and an auxiliary verb. In Mukhad this verb is the common 'to become' ('sound happens to X'), whereas the meanings of Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- and Luchek ečʼʷ- are unknown. Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- formally coincides with the verb y=ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit' (see notes on 'to kill'), where y= is a prefix with general semantics, but the semantics of hearing is strange in this case; on the other hand, Ixrek y=ɨχˤ- may consist of the class 4 exponent y= attached to the verb ɨχˤ- '?'.
Initial q= in the verbs for 'to listen' is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165]. Mukhad q=ac-u- and Ixrek q=äs-u-, Luchek q=as-ɨ- are obviously related (for the deaffricativization in Rutul dialects cf. [NCED: 138], although this problem still awaits more detailed research). The Mukhad and Ixrek data point to labialized *cʷ, thus the link between this Rutul root and Proto-Lezgian *ʔasV 'to be silent' seems unlikely, pace [NCED: 262].
Koshan Aghul:daχ xi-4
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 172; Shaumyan 1941: 144. Literally daχ 'sound' + the verb xi- 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62] (the exact syntactic construction is not documented).
Distinct from yirkʼʷ alaši- 'to listen', literally 'heart + to put' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 172. Literally un 'sound' + the verb xa- 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62]. A second synonym for 'to hear', quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], is un baˤ-, literally 'sound' + 'to go' (q.v.). The exact syntactic constructions are not documented.
Distinct from yabur qixa- 'to listen', literally 'ear + to overtake' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173].
Dirr 1907: 146, 184; Shaumyan 1941: 144. Literally un 'sound' + the verb xa- 'to become' [Dirr 1907: 119] (the exact syntactic construction is not documented).
Suleymanov 2003: 161; Shaumyan 1941: 144. Literally 'sound happens to X' with un 'sound' + the verb xa- 'to become' (cf. examples in [Shaumyan 1941: 116], [Magometov 1970: 201 sentence 2]). The same in the Tsirkhe and Kurag subdialects: un xa- 'to hear' [Shaumyan 1941: 144], [Magometov 1970: 211 sentence 42, 45].
Distinct from two Tpig expressions for 'to listen': ibur aqixa-, literally 'ear + to overtake' [Suleymanov 2003: 86], yirkʼʷ aliyana-, literally 'heart + to put' [Suleymanov 2003: 26].
AGX_NOTES:
Both of the Aghul analytical expressions for 'to hear' (daχ xi-, un xa-, literally 'sound happens to X') are innovations of areal origin.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yik-ˈ 'to hear' [Uslar 1979: 751, 1006; Dirr 1905: 166, 242]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk yik-ˈ {йибкув}, Kumi yik-ˈ {йикув}, Arkit ik-ˈ {ибкув} 'to hear' [Genko 2005: 73, 79].
Differently in the Chuvek subdialect: yix-ˈ {йибхьув} 'to hear' [Genko 2005: 79].
Distinct from the verbs for 'to listen': Khanag q-iw-iqː-ˈ 'to listen' [Uslar 1979: 809, 1006; Dirr 1905: 192, 242], Khyuryuk q-iw-iqː-ˈ {хъивикъкъув} 'to listen' [Genko 2005: 171]. These forms look like a compound of iw 'ear' q.v. and the verb iqː- '?' plus the spatial prefix q= 'behind', which modifies the whole expression. In Dyubek, 'to listen' is simply q=iqː-ˈ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173] (i.e. the spatial prefix + the verb), which can be a compression of the aforementioned compound.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yex-ˈ {ерхьуб} 'to hear' [Genko 2005: 64]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yex-ˈ {ебхьуб} 'to hear' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 154].
Distinct from the verbs for 'to listen': Khiv q-eb-eq-ˈ {хъебехъуб} 'to listen' [Genko 2005: 170], Literary Tabasaran q-p-eq-ˈ {хъпехъуб} 'to hear' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 324], Kondik q-eb-eq-ˈ 'to listen' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173] - apparently a compound of eb 'ear' + the verb eq- '?' plus the spatial prefix q= 'behind' (cf. similar expressions in Northern Tabasaran, although the used verbs differ).
More transparent are the analytic expressions for 'to listen', which literally mean 'to put the ear behind': Chara ib q=ib-ˈ 'to listen' [Genko 2005: 73] (ib 'ear' + the Chara verb ib-ˈ 'to put in' [Genko 2005: 73] + q= 'behind'); Literary Tabasaran ib q=ˈiw- {иб хъивуб} 'to hear' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 172] (ib 'ear' + the Literary Tabasaran verb ˈiw- {ивуб} 'to put in' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 172] + q= 'behind').
TAB_NOTES:
Two verbs with the meaning 'to hear' enter into competition here: yik- (Northern Tabasaran, except for the Chuvek subdialect, which is located on the border between two dialects, see the map in [Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 12]) and yex- (Southern Tabasaran). The external Lezgian comparison speaks in favour of Southern yex- as Proto-Tabasaran 'to hear', rather than Northern yik-.
Uslar 1896: 364, 632. Literally 'sound happens to X' with wan 'sound; voice' + the suppletive verb že- / xa- 'to become' [Uslar 1896: 435]. Distinct from Gyune yab aɣˈal- 'to listen', literally 'to string the ear' [Uslar 1896: 328, 443].
Several similar expressions for 'to hear' are documented for Literary Lezgi: wan že- / xa- {ван хьун}, literally 'sound (wan) happens to X' [Gadzhiev 1950: 784; Haspelmath 1993: 510, 521], wan qːʷe- / atːa- {ван атун}, literally 'sound (wan) comes to X' [Gadzhiev 1950: 784], ses qːʷe- / atːa-, literally 'sound (ses) comes to X' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 291].
Distinct from the literary expressions for 'to listen': yab gu- {яб гун}, literally 'to give ear', and yab akali- {яб акалун}, literally 'to string/attach the ear' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 35, 399; Gadzhiev 1950: 784; Haspelmath 1993: 480, 522].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔeɬɨ- ~ *ʔeɬːɨ-1
NCED: 411. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic verb for 'to hear' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. More precisely, *ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ- is to be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian verb 'to hear': it means 'to hear' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Tsakhur and Southern Tabasaran, but shifted to the meaning 'to keep silence' in Rutul. External North Caucasian comparison confirms the meaning 'to hear' for Proto-Lezgian *ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ-.
The second candidate is *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)- [NCED: 650], which means 'to hear' in Archi and, surprisingly, in Northern Tabasaran, but got lost in the rest of languages. The exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of this root cannot be established (it should be noted that some of its external North Caucasian cognates also demonstrate the meaning 'to hear'). The Tabasaran situation, when two main dialects possess different verbs for 'to hear' (*ʔeɬ(ː)ɨ- vs. *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)-) can only be explained as an independent semantic development *ʔi(r)kɨ(r)- '?' > 'to hear' in Archi and Northern Tabasaran.
In Rutul, Aghul, Lezgi, 'to hear' is expressed by analytic constructions 'sound happens to X' with different words for 'sound' and different auxiliary verbs. This is a late areal isogloss that affected the central part of the Lezgian territory.
Caucasian Albanian: huˤkʼ [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-27]. The alphabetical sign for a pharyngealized vowel uˤ apparently reflects the influence of the following ejective or the front vowel ü.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 879, 899; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 181; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 219. Polysemy: 'heart / stone (of fruit)' (the two meanings formally differ in pl. forms).
Distinct from baʁɨr 'heart (figurative)', baʁrɨ 'heart, breast (figurative), soul' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 66], borrowed from Azerbaijani baɣɨr 'liver (anatomic); breast, heart (figurative)'.
The same in the Khanag subdialect, but with retention of the irregular paradigm: yukʼ [abs.] / kʼ-a- [obl.] 'heart' [Uslar 1979: 756, 1005; Dirr 1905: 180, 241]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yukʼ [abs.] / kʼ-a- [obl.] {юкI} 'heart' [Genko 2005: 197].
The same in Literary Lezgi: rikʼ {рикI} 'heart' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 278; Gadzhiev 1950: 762; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 521].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut rikʼ 'heart' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 34].
Proto-Lezgian:*yirkʼʷ1
NCED: 678. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained in its basic meaning in all Lezgian languages.
The following semantic shifts, reflected as synchronic polysemy in individual lects, can be noted: 'stone (of fruit)' (Tsakhur, Rutul), 'soul' (Rutul).
Dzheiranishvili 1971: 205, 247; Schiefner 1863: 105; Schulze 2001: 301; Starchevskiy 1891: 506. The word is written with tense qː as {му̇kы̇нах} in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902: Lk. 1.69], although this Bežanovs' form was mistranscribed with plain q in [Schulze 2001: 301] (with further speculations about such a deglottalization).
The sources vary in this case. Modern dictionaries [Gukasyan 1974: 157; Mobili 2010: 190] quote qːˤancː {къаънцI} as the Vartashen term for 'horn', whereas sources of the 19th century show muqːˤa. Apparently there has been a lexical replacement over the course of the last century (note that [Dzheiranishvili 1971] reflects the archaic norm). Vartashen qːˤancː originates from Lezgian *qːˤa[n]cʼ(a) 'hook' [NCED: 462]. We treat both words as synonyms.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *muqːˤa, derived from muqːˤ 'deer' [Gukasyan 1974: 177; Mobili 2010: 217; Schiefner 1863: 104]. Cf. [Schulze 2001: 301] for some dubious etymological solutions for *muqːˤa (in particular, the author unjustifiedly suspects an Arabic loanword here).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: kʼarč with polysemy: 'horn / woman's plait / handle, grip' [Uslar 1979: 798, 1004; Dirr 1905: 190, 241]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼarč {кIарч} 'horn' [Genko 2005: 111].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: kʼarč {кIарч} with polysemy: 'horn / woman's plait / handle, grip' [Genko 2005: 111]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: kʼarč {кIарч} 'horn' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 213].
The same in Literary Lezgi: karč [abs.] / kr̥čː-ˈuni- [obl.] {карч} 'horn' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 152; Gadzhiev 1950: 730; Haspelmath 1993: 35, 494, 521]. The tense non-aspirated čː in the Gyune and Literary oblique stems is explained by the synchronic rule, according to which the lax aspirated T yields Tː after a voiceless segment, see [Haspelmath 1993: 47, 55] (such an interesting example as karč / kr̥čː-ˈ should be added to Haspelmath's illustrative lists).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut karč [abs.] / kr̥č-a- [obl.] 'horn' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 46].
Proto-Lezgian:*kalč ~ *kʼalč ~ *kːalč4
NCED: 723. Distribution: This word has been retained in its basic meaning in all Nuclear Lezgian lects, but has been completely lost in both outliers (Udi, Archi). The following semantic shifts, reflected as synchronic polysemy, should be noted: 'corner, edge' (Tsakhur), 'woman plait; handle, grip' (Tabasaran).
A second candidate is *pːaˤlː [NCED: 285], which means 'horn / top of the head' in Archi and 'forehead' in Nuclear Lezgian. Since the shift 'top of the head' > 'horn' is typologically more normal than vice versa, we assume that the Proto-Archi meaning was 'top of the head' (correspondingly, the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *pːaˤlː should be 'top of the head' or 'forehead').
The Proto-Udi substantive 'horn' was derived from *meˤrƛ 'deer' [NCED: 300]. In modern Vartashen Udi, it was superseded with *qːˤa[n]cʼ(a), whose original Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'hook' [NCED: 462].
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the unclear fluctuation of the initial stop: *k- in Kryts, Budukh, Rutul, Lezgi, *kʼ- in Aghul, Tabasaran, *kː- in Tsakhur. External North Caucasian comparison proposed in [NCED: 723] speaks in favor of *kʼ-.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *Kalče-.
Gukasyan 1974: 119, 274, 277; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 116; Mobili 2010: 300; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 467. Suppletive paradigm: zu [abs., erg.] / bez-i ~ bez [gen.] / za- [obl.]. The genitive form bez-i is from [Gukasyan 1974]; bez is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], probably a recent syncope of the final vowel.
The suppletive paradigm coincides in both dialects. The genetive form is to be analyzed as *b=ez-i with the fossilized class prefix and the nominal genitive ending -i.
Caucasian Albanian: zu [abs., erg.] / bezi [gen.] / za- [obl.] [Gippert et al. 2008: II-37, IV-16].
The historical shape Vz of the genitive form is retained only in Koshan; in other dialects the genitive has been levelled after the rest of the paradigm.
Uslar 1896: 59. Paradigm: zu-n [abs.] / za [erg., obl.] / zi ~ zi-n [gen.].
The same in Literary Lezgi: zu-n [abs.] / za [erg., obl.] / zi [gen.] {зун} 'I' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 150; Haspelmath 1993: 184].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut zɨ-n [abs.] / za [erg., obl.] / zɨ [gen.] 'I' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221].
Proto-Lezgian:*zo-n ~ *zo1
NCED: 1084. Distribution: Retained as the independent personal pronoun for the 1st p. sg. in all lects except for Borch-Khnov Rutul, where 'I' originates from the personal pronoun 'we (incl.)'.
The absolutive form is to be reconstructed as *zo-n ~ *zo. The status of the suffix -n is unclear. It is attested in Archi and in most Nuclear Lezgian languages: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Lezgi; it must be noted that in Tabasaran *zo(-n) has not survived, having been levelled after the oblique stem). On the contrary, -n is absent from Caucasian Albanian-Udi and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul). Finally, Alyk Kryts shows synchronic doublets zi-n ~ zi. In all these cases the nasal suffix could be explained as influence on the part of the 2nd p. sg. pronoun *u̯o-n 'thou' q.v., although it must be noted that the external North Caucasian comparanda also demonstrate fluctuation between forms with and without -n.
The oblique stem can be safely reconstructed as *za- (retained in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, Archi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian).
It is unclear how we should reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian ergative form. In Caucasian Albanian-Udi and many Nuclear Lezgian lects (Kryts, Budukh, Mishlesh Tsakhur, Ixrek Rutul, Koshan Aghul, Gequn Aghul, Fite Aghul, Proper Aghul), the ergative form coincides with the absolutive one (*zo-n ~ *zo). On the contrary, in Archi and the rest of Nuclear Lezgian (Mikik Tsakhur, Gelmets Tsakhur, Mukhad Rutul, Luchek Rutul, Keren Aghul, Lezgi), the ergative form is based on the oblique stem *za- (implying the Proto-Lezgian suffix-free ergative form *za).
The genitive stem is to be reconstructed as *class=iz. The class prefixation has been retained as a living pattern in Archi and as a fossilized prefix in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, but has been lost in Nuclear Lezgian. In some lects, the old genitive form can be additionally modified with the synchronic genitive suffix: Caucasian Albanian-Udi, Tsakhur (cf. also Rutul). In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), non-Koshan Aghul, Lezgi, the old genitive form was eliminated, having been levelled after the zV- pattern of the rest of the paradigm. The irregular voiceless fricative in Archi class=is is inexplicable.
Additionally, a specific dative form *class=ez could be theoretically reconstructed, based on Archi class=ez (no traces in other Lezgian languages).
Gukasyan 1974: 78; Mobili 2010: 54. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248] 'to kill' is translated as be-pː-sun {бепIсун} - apparently a typo for be-s-pː-sun {беспIсун}, the latter originally from syncopated *be-s-b-sun with the regular development bs > pːs (for which see [Maisak 2008a: 149]).
Gukasyan 1974: 78; Fähnrich 1999: 9; Dirr 1903: 2, 70, 96; Schiefner 1863: 101; Schulze 2001: 255; Starchevskiy 1891: 489. In [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 265] 'to kill' is translated as be-s-pː-esun ~ be-s-b-esun (the former variant apparently stays for syncopated be-s-pː-sun with bs > pːs).
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *be-s-b-esun. A transitive/causative from be-s-, formed with the light verb -b- 'to do' [Schulze 2005: 569 ff. (3.4.2.2 #22 ff.)]. As accepted in [NCED: 662], be-s- is apparently a contracted form of the infinitive bi-es from the verb bi-esun ~ bi-sun 'to die' q.v. The change i > e is not entirely clear, however.
Caucasian Albanian: A labile verb with the suppletive paradigm: bilʸ-a- (present, imperative, future) / pʼur-i- (past) and polysemy: 'to die / to kill' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44, IV-35]. See notes on 'to die'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 185; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 234; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248; Mikailov 1967: 173; Dirr 1908: 131, 224. The main meaning of this frequent verb is generic: 'to perform an action most typically associated with the given object in the current situation', an additional specific meaning is 'to kill', obj. = human or animal, sg. or pl. For the pl. object cf. examples like "Who can kill them (= two lovers) in the presence of the people?" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 11].
More marginal are two complex causative verbs, which literally mean 'to make to die':
1) kʼis-a- from the verb =kʼa- 'to die (sg.)' q.v. Found in some texts, e.g., [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 61, 85, 88]. Apparently used with sg. obj. only.
2) χʷis-a- with polysemy 'to kill / to beat up (obj. = people) / to scold severely, condemn / to wear out' [Chumakina et al. 2007] from the verb =χʷi- 'to die (pl. subj.)'. This is not specified in [Chumakina et al. 2007], but apparently χʷis-as is applied to pl. obj. only.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 171. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 26 sub barut, etc.].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248] 'to kill' is glossed as ülum siʔi- {уьлум сиъи}, literally 'death' + 'to do', which could be a neologism on the authors' part (note that ülum is an error for ülüm 'death' [Meylanova 1984: 140]).
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], erroneously quoted as gʸ=iɢ- {гикъаз}.
TKR_NOTES:
Initial gʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. The verb gʸ=ikʼ- 'to kill (sg. obj.)' contains the same root as 'to die (sg. subj.)' q.v., modified with another prefix; the verb gʸ=atʼ- 'to kill (pl. obj.)' contains the same root as 'to die (pl. subj.)', modified with another prefix.
Dirr 1912: 144, 202; Ibragimov 1978: 121; Makhmudova 2001: 71, 116, 252; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to kill / to die (q.v.)', applied to sg. obj./subj.
Distinct from class=ɨrqʼ- / class=qʼɨrqʼ- 'to kill (pl. obj.) / to die (pl. subj.)' [Dirr 1912: 144, 166].
A second candidate is y=ɨχˤ-, glossed as 'to kill' in [Makhmudova 2001: 107] with the example: "Matsay killed his own chicken" [Makhmudova 2001: 176-177]. But the main meaning of y=ɨχˤ- is 'to strike, hit; to wound', as it is glossed in [Dirr 1912: 163] (with examples) and [Ibragimov 1978: 121]; cf also two additional examples: "The raising sun touched (lit. struck) the mountain top" [Makhmudova 2001: 73], "Beat the drum!" [Makhmudova 2001: 210].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 405. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to kill / to die (q.v.)'. It must be noted that in the main section of the dictionary [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 131] this verb is only glossed as 'to die', whereas in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 248] 'to kill' is translated as y=iqʼ-e h=aʔ- - causative from class=iqʼ-i-r.
A second candidate is y=ɨχˤ-ɨ-r {йыIхыIн} 'to strike, hit; to wound (with a weapon), kill; to push, shove' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 136, 405], with the example: "We have killed a bear" [Ibragimov 1978: 213].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 171. Synchronically irregular verb with three parallel imperfective stems: y=ɨ=l=χˤ-a-r- ~ r=ɨχˤ-a-r-~ y=ɨ=r=χʕ-a-r- [imperf.] / ɨχˤ-ɨ-r [perf.]. Note the rare imperfective infix -l- and the relict imperfective prefix r-; the third imperfective stem is regular. Used both with sg. and pl. obj.
RUT_NOTES:
The Proto-Rutul verb for 'to kill (sg. obj.)' was the labile =iqʼ- 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)'. The verb for 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)', attested in Mukhad and Luchek, is etymologically related, formed with reduplication.
There is a tendency in Rutul dialects to restrict =iqʼ- to the meaning 'to die' and ascribe the meaning 'to kill' to the verb y=ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit', which is derived from ɨχˤ- 'to strike, hit' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 102] with the prefix y=. This process is currently finished in the Luchek dialect. It must be noted that the semantic development 'to hit' > 'to kill' is normal, whereas vice versa is typologically odd.
Uslar 1896: 529, 636, 637. Imperfective stem. Labile verb with polysemy: 'to die / to kill'; for further notes, see 'to die'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiƛʼe1
NCED: 661. Distribution: Preserved in the majority of Lezgian languages. The complete Proto-Lezgian system is reconstructed as *ʔiƛʼe 'to die / to kill' (sg.), *ʔilχʷe 'to die / to kill' (pl.). Further see notes on 'to die'.
Replacements: {'to perform an action most typically associated with the given object in the current situation' > 'to kill'} (Archi), {'to cut' > 'to kill'} (Budukh), {'to cut' > 'to die / to kill'} (Tsakhur), {'to strike, hit' > 'to kill'} (Rutul).
Gukasyan 1974: 141; Fähnrich 1999: 20; Mobili 2010: 174; Schulze 2001: 292. In [Fähnrich 1999: 20] the variant kːaˤkːapː is also quoted. In [Schiefner 1863: 82] quoted as kːäkːäp.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kːaˤkːa-pː with a fossilized plural suffix.
Caucasian Albanian: lʸek, attested once in Is. 35.3 [Gippert et al. 2008: VII-23] (missing from the dictionary in [Gippert et al. 2008: IV]). Possesses reliable Lezgian cognates (Lezgian *läk 'a part of the leg' [NCED: 755]).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 294, 363; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 212; Mikailov 1967: 196; Dirr 1908: 175, 211. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] incorrectly quoted with the variant poˤmr {поIмр} due to misunderstanding of a peculiarity of the Russian alphabet. Suppletive paradigm: poˤmp [abs. sg.] / pˈoˤmp-li- [obl.] / poˤt [abs. pl.] / pˈoˤ-r-čay [erg. pl.]. As proposed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 45], could be analyzed as the root poˤ with nasal reduplication in sg. poˤ-m-p (a unique pattern for the noun system) and regular plural forms poˤ-t, pˈoˤ-r-čay.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32; Dirr 1907: 138, 174; Shaumyan 1941: 186. The more archaic variant qʼʷaqʼʷ is from [Dirr 1907]; in [Shaumyan 1941], both forms are quoted; the modern source, [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], gives only qʼuqʼ.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qʼamqʼ with polysemy: 'knee / stalk (of cereal)' [Uslar 1979: 880, 995; Dirr 1905: 201, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qʼamqʼ {кьамкь} 'knee' [Genko 2005: 105].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: qʼamqʼ {кьамкь} 'knee' [Genko 2005: 105]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼamqʼ {кьамкь} 'knee' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 208].
Uslar 1896: 506, 615. Paradigm: met [abs.] / metʼ-ˈi- [obl.].
The same in Literary Lezgi: met [abs.] / metʼ-ˈi- [obl.] {мет} 'knee' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 237; Gadzhiev 1950: 296; Haspelmath 1993: 498, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut met [abs.] / metː-ˈa- [obl.] 'knee' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 32].
Proto-Lezgian:*pɨˤmp ~ *pʼɨˤmpʼ2
LEDb: #230. Distribution: An unstable word. From the distributional point of view, the best candidate is *pɨˤmp / *pʼɨˤmpʼ which denotes 'knee' in Archi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the other. The meaning shifted to 'angle, corner' in Tabasaran and Lezgi. The Proto-Lezgian reconstruction is not entirely clear phonetically and morphophonologically (see below); external North Caucasian etymology of this root is unknown.
The second candidate is *qʼamqʼ [NCED: 907], which is attested in the meaning 'knee' in some West Lezgian (Rutul) and some East Lezgian lects (Aghul, Tabasaran). Formally, *qʼamqʼ and *pɨˤmp occur with criss-crossing distribution within Nuclear Lezgian. As in some other cases, we suppose that *qʼamqʼ in the meaning 'knee' is an areal introduction, shared by some languages (including Proto-Dargi *qʼʷaqʼʷa ‘knee’ in the adjacent Dargi lects!) after the split of Proto-Nuclear Lezgian.
Various replacements occurred in individual languages.
Udi: *kʼälkʼ- (~ -e-, -r-) [NCED: 720], modified with the fossilized plural suffix. The exact meaning of Proto-Lezgian *kʼälkʼ- cannot be established with certainty. Outside Udi, this root is attested as 'calf of leg' (Lezgi) and 'top of boot' (Aghul). The attested meanings suggest something like 'a part of leg between knee and ankle'.
Caucasian Albanian: *läk [NCED: 755], whose original meaning seems to have been 'leg bone' (shifted to 'bone' q.v. in Archi and into 'foot, leg' q.v. in Tabasaran-Aghul).
Tsakhur: *qʼaraCay / *Caraqʼay [LEDb: #204], this root means 'shin' in Rutul. Unattested outside West Lezgian.
Lezgi: *wenčʼː [NCED: 1042]; this root denotes 'lower corner of sack or bag' in Archi. External North Caucasian comparison points to the primary anatomic semantics ('a part of leg').
Replacements: {'a part of leg between knee and ankle' > 'knee'} (Udi), {'leg bone' > 'knee'} (Caucasian Albanian), {'shin' > 'knee'(?)} (Tsakhur), {'knee' > 'angle, corner'} (Tabasaran, Lezgi), {'knee' > 'stalk (of cereal)'} (Northern Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are not quite regular due to fluctuation of the ejective ~ plain stops: *p-p in Archi, Kryts, Budukh ('knee') vs. *pʼ-pʼ in Tabasaran, Lezgi ('angle, corner').
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The irregular Archi paradigm suggests that the original shape of the root could be *pɨ (~ *pʼɨ) with further reduplication.
Common Udi *a-ba-bak-esun, derived from *a-ba (Nidzh ava, Vartashen aba) 'knowing, knowledgeable, competent' [Gukasyan 1974: 31] with the light verb -bak- 'to be(come)' [Schulze 2005: 561 f. (3.4.2.2 #10); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. The adjective *a-ba contains the common adjectival suffix -ba, on which see [Gukasyan 1974: 272; Schulze 2005: 222 f. (3.2.9.1 #7)]; for the sporadic fricativization b > v in the Nidzh dialect see [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 277; Maisak 2008a: 150 f.]. In [Gippert et al. 2008: II-76] Nidzh ava ~ Vartashen aba are not segmented, but incorrectly treated as primary roots originating from Lezgian *ʔacʼa- (with *cʼ > v/b).
Caucasian Albanian: aa- [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-4]. Phonetically, apparently aʔa- with ʔ in the place of the lost Lezgian *cʼ. Distinct (although in some contexts very close semantically) from the less frequent verb čal-χ-esun 'to know, realize' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-36], which corresponds to modern Udi čal-χ-esun 'to recognize, know, experience, make the acquaintance of smb.' [Gukasyan 1974: 236; Schulze 2001: 265].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 314, 360; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 727. In [Mikailov 1967: 197; Dirr 1908: 181, 209] and also [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 727] 'to know' is quoted as sˈin-ke-, although the actual meaning of this paronymous complex verb is 'to find out, learn; to recognize; to feel (pain)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 314].
Distinct from bˈecʼːa- 'to be able to; to know how' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 201].
Saadiev 1994: 423, 440, 442. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 727] quoted as a complex expression with the verb xi- 'to become': class=äcʼä-r xi-. Apparently used in perfective (aorist) form only.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177. Polysemy: 'to know / to be able'. A complex expression hacʼǝ-r yɨxǝ-r- can also be used (participle plus the verb yɨxǝ- / sǝxǝ- 'to be(come)'). Missing from [Meylanova 1984: 40], where only the participle hacʼǝr 'knowledgeable, understanding' is quoted.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 727] 'to know' is incorrectly glossed as baladu {баладу}, which means something like 'to be acquainted (with a person)', cf. [Meylanova 1984: 25].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177; Suleymanov 2003: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 146. Polysemy: 'to know / to get to know'. An analytic construction with the verb xi- 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62]. The variant aħa-r is from [Suleymanov 2003].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 177. Irregular verb with the synthetic present form ħuye; the rest of the paradigm is formed analytically as ħa-r xi-. The auxiliary verb xi- in Kibrik & Kodzasov's gloss may be an error for xa- = the verb xa- 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62].
The same root in the Usug subdialect: Ha-r waˤ- 'to know' [Shaumyan 1941: 146, 197]; the auxiliary verb waˤ- means 'to go' q.v.
Suleymanov 2003: 92; Magometov 1970: 202 (sentence 10); Shaumyan 1941: 146. Polysemy: 'to know / to get to know'. An analytic construction with the verb xa- 'to become'.
The same root in the Kurag subdialect: aHa-y-e ~ y=aʁˤä-y-e [imperf.] / ʡ=aHa-r xa- ~ aHa-r xa- [other forms] 'to know / to get to know' [Magometov 1970: 167, 181, 188, 209 sentence 9]. Magometov's inconsistent transcription of the root fricative is obviously wrong, but the picture is similar to the Keren (Richa) dialect: the synthetic imperfect (presence) and the analytic rest of the paradigm.
The analytic construction in other subdialects:Duldug aHa-r xa-, Tsirkhe aχˤa-r xa- 'to know; to get to know' [Shaumyan 1941: 146].
Initial y= and ʡ= look like desemanticized preverbs.
AGX_NOTES:
A poorly documented verb, both phonetically and paradigmatically. In all the dialects, the proper verbal forms tend to be superseded with the analytic construction aHa-r + the auxiliary verbs 'to become' or 'to go'. The nominal form aHa-r ~ Ha-r represents the old participle or gerund.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: aʁˤa x-ˈ ~ aʁˤu x-ˈ {аьгъяхьуб} 'to know' [Genko 2005: 23].
TAB_NOTES:
In all dialects the equivalent for 'know' is an analytic construction: the participle from the lost verb aʁˤ- 'to know' + the suppletive auxiliary verb 'to become', for which see [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62].
Uslar 1896: 191, 193, 594. Literally 'to be-known to X'. The analytic construction with the participle čːi-r že-/xa- or simple čːi že-/xa- can also be used, literally 'to become (že- / xa-) known to X'.
Similarly in Literary Lezgi: čːi- with polysemy: 'to know / to know how', literally 'to be-known to X' [Haspelmath 1993: 139, 484, 522]. Used in the imperfective; for the perfective, the analytic construction with the participle čːi-r xa- {чирхьун} is used, literally 'to become (xa-) known to X' [Gadzhiev 1950: 248; Haspelmath 1993: 139]. Not attested in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔacʼa-1
NCED: 262. Distribution: Retained as the basic root for 'to know' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). It must be noted that in Udi, the verb got lost, whereas the root survived in the suffixed adjective as an element of the complex verb (literally 'to be knowing'). Similarly, the old verb tends to be superseded with the analytic construction participle + 'to be(come)' in Nuclear Lezgian. The original meaning of *ʔacʼa- shifted to 'to be able to; to know how' in Archi.
In Aghul and Tabasaran, the old root was lost, superseded with *ʔaχːˤa- [NCED: 565] (as in the case of *ʔacʼa-, the most frequent construction is participle + 'to be(come)'). The exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ʔaχːˤa- is not clear, apparently something like 'to get to know, to learn' (cf. its meanings 'teaching, lesson' in Archi, 'to be able to' in Tsakhur).
In some lects, the basic meaning 'to know' is expressed with etymologically obscure roots: Archi(sˈini), Lezgi (čːi-).
Replacements: {'to know' > 'to be able to; to know how'} (Archi, Budukh).
As correctly proposed in [Schulze 2001: 333], an Azerbaijani loanword. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dialectal (Zaqatala) xazal 'leaf', literary xäzäl 'fallen dry leaves' (ultimately from Persian).
Caucasian Albanian: ʒeeup [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-36]. The form is not fully reliable and etymologically obscure; it is attested only in the plural meaning 'leaves' = 'foliage'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96; Suleymanov 2003: 194. Applied to both trees and herbs.
Distinct from kʼiǯ 'paper, sheet of paper; letter (message)' [Shaumyan 1941: 183; Suleymanov 2003: 125; Magometov 1970: 152].
It is surprising, however, that in the only Burshag example found for the meaning 'leaf' it is the word kʼiǯ that is used: "In autumn, leaves fall down from the trees" [Shaumyan 1941: 40].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96. Applied to trees. Distinct from cʼab 'leaf of herb' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96] (in [Magometov 1970: 36], apparently erroneously glossed as 'tree leaf').
The same in the Usug subdialect: pʼaˤš 'tree leaf' [Shaumyan 1941: 153]. Distinct from Usug kʼež 'paper, sheet of paper; letter (message)' [Shaumyan 1941: 183].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96; Dirr 1907: 137, 176; Shaumyan 1941: 153. The variant pʼaˤž is from [Dirr 1907]. Applied to trees.
Distinct from cʼaw 'leaf of herb' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96].
Distinct from kʼeǯ ~ kʼiž 'paper, sheet of paper; letter (message)' [Dirr 1907: 130; Shaumyan 1941: 183] (the latter form is from [Dirr 1907]).
Fite Aghul:cʼab5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96. Applied to both trees and herbs.
Aghul (proper):cʼab5
Suleymanov 2003: 194. According to Suleymanov's examples, Tpig cʼab is applied to both trees and herbs. In [Shaumyan 1941: 153], however, the Tpig word for 'tree leaf' is quoted as paǯ.
Distinct from kʼeǯ 'paper, sheet of paper; letter (message)' [Suleymanov 2003: 125; Shaumyan 1941: 183]. It is interesting, however, that in the only Tpig example found in Shaumyan's work for the meaning 'leaf' the word kʼeǯ is used: "In autumn, leaves fall down from the trees" [Shaumyan 1941: 40].
AGX_NOTES:
A rather unclear situation here, with three candidates for the meaning 'leaf': pʼaˤž, cʼab and kʼeǯ. The word cʼab (cʼaw) has a cognate in Tabasaran (the closest relative of Aghul): cʼab ~ cʼaw 'herb leaf', suggesting that it is possible to reconstruct the opposition 'tree leaf' vs. 'herb leaf' (cʼab) for Proto-Aghul; in such a case the former term would be superseded with the latter one (cʼab) in some dialects, where this typologically rare semantic opposition was eliminated.
It is uncertain how the Proto-Aghul word for 'tree leaf' should be reconstructed. Upon first sight, pʼaˤž is the best candidate ('tree leaf' in Keren and Gequn), but first, it should be noted that kʼeǯ, which everywhere means 'sheet of paper', might be attested in the meaning 'tree leaf' in Koshan and Proper Aghul (if Shaumyan's examples are valid); second, the semantic development 'leaf' > 'sheet (of paper)' is typologically possible, whereas vice versa looks odd. These facts could point to kʼeǯ as the Proto-Aghul term for 'tree leaf'. Both kʼeǯ and pʼaˤž possess external Lezgian cognates with the meaning 'leaf', but kʼeǯ seems a more preferable candidate for the status of this basic Proto-Lezgian term. It should be noted that, as plausibly proposed in [NCED: 298], pʼaˤž acquires the shape pʼaˤǯ in some Aghul dialects under the influence of kʼeǯ. This can additionally confirm that the main Proto-Aghul word for 'tree leaf' was kʼeǯ, whereas pʼaˤž denoted some specific kind of leaves.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96. Apparently applied to both trees and herbs.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: kʼaǯ with polysemy: 'leaf of tree / sheet of paper / letter (message)' [Uslar 1979: 793, 997; Dirr 1905: 189, 232], opposed to cʼaw 'plant tops (Russian: ботва)' [Uslar 1979: 959].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼaǯ {кIажж} 'leaf of tree' [Genko 2005: 110], as opposed to cʼaw {цIав} 'leaf of herb, plant tops' [Genko 2005: 176] (the dialectal origin of cʼaw is not specified by Genko, but phonetically the form is Northern Tabasaran; Khyuryuk is the most probable variant).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96. Apparently applied to both trees and herbs.
Differently in the Khiv subdialect: kʼaǯ {кIажж} with polysemy: 'leaf of tree / paper, sheet of paper / letter (message) / amulet' [Genko 2005: 110], as opposed to cʼab {цIаб} 'leaf of herb, plant tops' [Genko 2005: 176].
In Literary Tabasaran: kʼaǯ {кIаж} with polysemy: 'leaf / paper, sheet of paper / letter (message) / amulet' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 212] - apparently applied to both trees and herbs; the literary word cʼab {цIаб} means 'petal' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 331].
TAB_NOTES:
The typologically rare opposition kʼaǯ 'tree leaf' / cʼab 'herb leaf' is to be reconstructed for Proto-Tabasaran.
Uslar 1896: 359, 616. Applied to trees (at least).
The same in Literary Lezgi: pːeš {пеш} 'leaf' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 264; Gadzhiev 1950: 336; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 522] (applied to both trees and herbs).
Differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut riqʼ-ˈäy 'leaf' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 96] (applied to both trees and herbs). Final -Vy is a rare desemanticized suffix.
In is unclear how the Proto-Lezgi term for 'leaf' should be reconstructed. Note the different treatment of Lezgian *pː in Gyune (b) and Literary Lezgi (pː).
Proto-Lezgian:*ƛʼačʼa1
NCED: 773. Distribution: An unstable word. Three roots enter into competition with each other in this "criss-crossed" situation. Tentatively, we fill the slot with *ƛʼačʼa [NCED: 773], which has the best distribution among the candidates. The root *ƛʼačʼa means 'leaf' in Archi, on the one hand, and in Tabasaran (specifically 'tree leaf') and apparently Proto-Aghul, on the other. Additionally, this root means 'grain' in Udi (< *'husk'?), 'stem, stalk' in Lezgi, Kryts, 'pod, seedpod' in Tsakhur, 'straw' in Budukh (cf. also Rutul qʼačʼ 'grain' quoted in [NCED], not found in other sources). However, external North Caucasian cognates of Lezgian *ƛʼačʼa are fairly scant and dubious.
The second candidate is *rɨƛʼʷ (reduplicated *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ) [NCED: 784]. It is attested as 'leaf' in Rutul and Akhty Lezgi, but has been lost in the rest of languages (in [NCED], cf. also Budukh kʼurukʼ 'bud' is quoted, not found in primary sources). Lezgian *rɨƛʼʷ ~ *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ has a weak distribution, and there are no internal reasons to reconstruct this root as the basic Proto-Lezgian term for 'leaf'. Nevertheless, *rɨƛʼʷ ~ *ƛʼʷɨrɨƛʼʷ has very good external North Caucasian cognates that point to the meaning 'leaf'.
The third candidate is *pːaˤša [NCED: 297], attested as 'leaf' in Kryts, Gyune Lezgi, some Aghul dialects (but probably not Proto-Aghul). In Budukh, this stem means 'bud, gemma'. It is unclear how the exact meaning of Proto-Lezgian *pːaˤša should be reconstructed.
In Tsakhur, 'leaf' is expressed by *tʼʷela [NCED: 1006], whose original Proto-Nuclear Lezgian (and Proto-Lezgian?) meaning was no doubt 'twig, rod' (with a further shift to 'rib' in some lects).
Cf. also cʼab, which means specifically 'herb leaf' in Proto-Aghul-Tabasaran (without further etymology?).
Inherited terms for 'leaf' were superseded with Azerbaijani loanwords in Udi, Alyk Kryts, Budukh.
Gukasyan 1974: 71, 93 (sub бул); Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561; Mobili 2010: 49, 74. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep / to fall asleep'. This currently serves as the default expression for 'to sleep' q.v. in Nidzh.
Gukasyan 1974: 71, 93 (sub бул); Fähnrich 1999: 8; Schiefner 1863: 100; Schulze 2001: 254; Starchevskiy 1891: 486. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'. According to texts in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], in the past tenses this verb acquires an additional meaning 'to sleep' q.v.; in [Dirr 1903: 42, 43] the masdar is also quoted with the meaning 'to sleep'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *bas-kː-esun 'to lie; to lie down', formed with the aid of the light verb -kː- 'to let(?)' [Schulze 2005: 561 f. (3.4.2.2 #14, 21); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. The synchronic root bas- is to be analyzed as *b=as- with a fossilized class prefix ([NCED: 1038], followed by [Gippert et al. 2008: II-71]). Alternatively (thus [Schulze 2001: 254]) and less likely - as *ba=s- with the locative preverb ba(y)- 'in', for which see [Maisak 2008a: 156; Harris 2002: 69; Schulze 2005: 580 ff. (3.4.3)] (for unknown reasons, this preverb is glossed as 'down' in [Schulze 2001: 254]).
Caucasian Albanian: The verb bas-kʼ- is, in fact, attested only in the past tense with the meaning 'to sleep, to fall asleep' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-8] (the same situation as in archaic Vartashen, see above). This is, however, probably not the basic expression for 'to sleep' q.v.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 194, 365; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 235; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561; Dirr 1908: 129, 212. Perfective stem: ˈaχu-. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'; applied to animated subj. The meaning 'to sleep', proposed in [Mikailov 1967: 172] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235], is proven by the example "He is still asleep (lit. lying down)" [Chumakina et al. 2007], although this is probably not the default expression for 'to sleep' q.v. In [Mikailov 1967: 172] =ˈaχa- is incorrectly translated as simply 'to sleep'. The same verb is used in the expression for 'to sleep' q.v. (ˈaχu-ke-).
Distinct from =ˈeɬːa- 'to lie (inanimate subj.); to put' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 229].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561. Ablaut paradigm: c=u-l-qʼäl- [imperf.] / c=uqʼul- [perf., imv.]. Initial c= is the preverb of general semantics, -l- is the imperfective infix. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down' (in the aforementioned sources quoted for 'to lie down'; the stative meaning 'to lie' is given in [NCED: 265]).
Meylanova 1984: 82, 219; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561] the imperfective l-infixed form is quoted with a typo: qːalqːal {къалкъал} for qːalqʼal {къалкьал}. Polysemy: 'to fall, go sprawling / to lie / to lie down'. Initial qː= is the preverb 'out' [Alekseev 1994: 271].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 68, 875; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 211; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561. Ablaut paradigm: qːilʸ=ex-a [imperf.] / qːalʸ=ix-u [perf.] / qːalʸ=ix-as [fut.]. Thematic -u- in perf. can hardly serve as an unambiguous indication of labialized -xʷ- in the root. More important evidence for -xʷ- is the negative masdar class 1/2 qːil-dʸ-e-r-xʷu-y, quoted in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 211]; it is not clear, however, whether this form is reliable. Cf. the positive masdar 1/2 with plain -x- in the same source: qːalʸ-i-r-xɨ-y. It is possible theoretically that -x- has been levelled across the paradigm after forms of class 3, where -pxʷ- > -px- or -oːxʷ- > -oːx- (a regular dissimilative process), but such forms are not numerous, thus it is strange to regard them as the source of levelling.
Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down' (for the stative meaning cf., e.g., an example in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 220]). Applied to sg. subj.
Distinct from qːalʸ=akʼʷ- 'to lie; to lie down' (pl. subj.) [Kibrik et al. 1999: 68, 875; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 211].
In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], qːilʸ=ex- and qːalʸ=akʼʷ- are quoted with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep', which frequently occurs in the Tsakhur dialects, but this is not the Mishlesh case, where 'to sleep' is expressed by a specific verb (q.v.).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Dirr 1913: 151, 229. Ablaut paradigm: ʁilʸ=ex-a [imperf.] / ʁalʸ=ix-u [perf.] / ʁalʸ=ix-as [fut.]; note the thematic -u- in perf. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep'. Applied to sg. subj.
Distinct from ʁalʸ=ekʼʷ- 'to lie; to lie down; to sleep' (pl. subj.) [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88].
Gelmets Tsakhur:
Not attested. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], 'to lie down' is glossed as sowkamiš-x- {совкамишхьез}, which looks like an Azerbaijani loanword: the Azerbaijani verbal root sowka- + the Azerbaijani perfect suffix -miš + the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become', although the actual source of sowka- has not been identified (the possible candidate is Azerbaijani söykä-mäk 'to lean against, rest against', if one assumes a dialectal development in Azerbaijani into **sövkä- 'to lie (down)').
Cf. ʁalʸ=ix- 'to sleep' q.v.
TKR_NOTES:
Initial ʁ=Vlʸ= (Mishlesh qː=Vlʸ=) is a double prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 125; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Ibragimov 1978: 32, 120; Makhmudova 2001: 71, 96, 243. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], erroneously quoted as l=uχ- {лухун}. Polysemy: 'to fall (subj. = only human?), go sprawling / to lie'. Cf. an example: "Anuts is lying" [Makhmudova 2001: 71]. In [Dirr 1912: 158], only attested with the meaning 'to fall' (no expressions for 'to lie' are provided by Dirr). Regular paradigm: l=uk-a-r- [imperf.] / l=uk-u-r [perf.].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], a second term for 'to lie down' is also quoted: k=utʼ- {кутIун} (not found in other sources), on which see below.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 181, 203, 352. A collocation ('to lie, rest'), which consists of the adverb ow 'down' and the verb luk- 'to fall (subj. = only human?)' with the regular paradigm: l=uk-ä-r- [imperf.] / l=uk-u-r [perf.].
A second candidate is k=utʼ- {кутIун} 'to lie / to be ill' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 148], with the examples: "He (or it?) is lying on the ground", "I have been ill for many days". In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], 'to lie down' is quoted as ow k=utʼ- with the same adverb ow 'down'.
The difference between ow l=uk- and k=utʼ- is unclear; we treat both as synonyms.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88. Regular paradigm: l=u=r=k-a-r- [imperf.] / l=uk-u-r [perf.]. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'. This verb is quoted in the meaning 'to lie down' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], but the lexical opposition 'to lie' : 'to lie down' is atypical for this region; hence, we assume the aforementioned polysemy for Luchek l=uk-.
RUT_NOTES:
Shinaz dialect: in [Ibragimov 1978: 163] the verb k=utʼ- is quoted with the meaning 'to get into bed, lie down into bed'.
It is unclear how the Proto-Rutul verb for 'to lie' should be reconstructed, because the available lexicographic information is very scarce. The widespread verb l=uk- rather represents the Proto-Rutul term for 'to fall, go sprawling', which has latter acquired the meaning 'to lie' in some dialects (cf. the analytic Ixrek construction "down + to fall"). On the contrary, k=utʼ- 'to lie' may be an archaism.
Initial l=, k= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165].
Pace [NCED: 644], no direct traces of labialized -kʷ- in l=uk- are observed in the available Rutul data (due to the dissimilative delabialization ukʷ > uk).
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], three verbs are quoted as synonyms for 'to lie down' (scil. 'to lie'): aχ-a-, utː=ark-i- and ʁ=ark-i-; semantic and pragmatic nuances are unknown.
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], two verbs are quoted as synonyms for 'to lie down' (scil. 'to lie'): fa=tː=ix-a- and a=q=ux-a-; semantic and pragmatic nuances are unknown.
A different root in the Usug subdialect: qa=d=ark-a- 'to lie; to lie down' [Shaumyan 1941: 141] ("He lay on the bed").
Dirr 1907: 104, 175. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep (q.v.)'. Cf. the example for the stative meaning 'to lie': "We will lie near this she-donkey" [Dirr 1907: 77].
Shaumyan 1941: 141. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'. Shaumyan's example for the stative meaning: "He lay on the bed". It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 35], a=q=ux-a- is more specifically translated as 'to lie down for a short time (Russian: прилечь)'. Probably no expressions for the generic 'to lie (animated subj.)' in [Suleymanov 2003].
Differently in the Tsirkhe subdialect: q=arx-a- 'to lie; to lie down' [Shaumyan 1941: 141].
AGX_NOTES:
We presume that Koshan and Keren verbs, which are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] for the concept 'to lie down', actually possess the polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'.
In sum, four or five verbal roots, sometimes modified with various spatial prefixes, are attested in Aghul dialects with the meaning 'to lie (down)': 1) aχ-a- 'to lie (down); to sleep'; 2) =ark-i- 'to lie (down); to sleep'; 3) =arx-a- 'to lie (down); to sleep'; 4) =ix-a- 'to lie (down)'; 5) (a)qux-a- 'to lie (down)'. The areal isoglosses of polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' and derivation 'to fall' → 'to lie (down); to sleep' are rather strong in Aghul, which makes the reconstruction of the Proto-Aghul verbs for 'to lie' and 'to sleep' difficult.
It seems that the prefixed =arx-a- has secondarily acquired the meanings 'to lie' (Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul) and 'to sleep' (Keren, Proper Aghul, Fite), because the main synchronic meaning of (=)arx-a- is 'to fall' [Magometov 1970: 164], and external Lezgian comparison confirms this [NCED: 602].
The root =ark-i-, modified with various spatial prefixes, seems to be a recent introduction in the generic meanings 'to lie (down)' (Koshan, Usug Keren) and 'to sleep' (Burshag Koshan). The basic meaning of the prefixless stem ark-i- is retained in Burshag Koshan as 'to fall down' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 84]; various verbal prefixed stems from this root in Aghul dialects also demonstrate the semantics of 'falling' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 84; Shaumyan 1941: 137, 138]. This Aghul root originates from Proto-Lezgian *ʔarkɨr- / *ʔerkɨr- 'to fall; to let fall' [NCED: 266].
Similarly, Keren (Richa) fa=tː=ix-a- is secondary in the generic meaning 'to lie (animated subj.)', because in other Aghul dialects the standard meaning of this prefixed stem is 'to throw, let fall; to be ill in bed, be laid up' [Shaumyan 1941: 149; Suleymanov 2003: 165]. External Lezgian comparison suggests that the primary meaning of Proto-Lezgian *ʔeɬːʷɨ- (from which Aghul =ix-a- originates) was 'to put; to lie (inanimate subj.)' [NCED: 279].
The expressions aqux-a- (Richa Keren, Tpig), qux-a- (Gequn) 'to lie (down)' must apparently be analyzed as prefixed a=q=ux-a-, q=ux-a-, where a= is the spatial preverb ʔa= (ʔ is often dropped in modern Aghul dialects, T. Maisak, p.c.). If so, the verbal root =ux-a- must be regarded as an ablaut variant of =ix-a-, discussed above. Theoretically, however, one can treat (a)quxa- as the analytic construction aqu xa-, where aqu is the regular past participle from the verb aq- '?' and xa- is the common auxiliary verb 'to become'. In this case, Gequn qu(-)xa- is the result of sporadic vowel reduction, on which see [Suleymanov 1993: 42 f.]. Indeed, the Tabasaran (closest relative of Aghul) data can speak in favour of the postulation of the Aghul verb aq- 'to lie' (thus [NCED: 264]), but all Aghul sources (including [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] and [Suleymanov 2003]) quote (a)qux-a- as one synthetic stem. Because of this, we prefer to follow the prefixal analysis (following [NCED: 279]).
No verb for 'to lie (animated subj.)' can be assuredly reconstructed for Proto-Aghul, but the prefixless verb aχ-a- is safely reconstructible as the Proto-Aghul term for 'to sleep' q.v. (aχ-a- 'to sleep' is retained in Burshag Koshan, Gequn and the Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul). Maybe the Burshag Koshan and Gequn situation is primary (aχ-a- with polysemy: 'to lie; to sleep'), and aχ-a- was also the basic Proto-Aghul verb for 'to lie (animated subj.)'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88. Apparently applied to both sg. and pl. subject.
The system in the Khanag subdialect is more complicated: d=ˈaq- 'to lie; to lie down' (sg. subj.) [Uslar 1979: 656, 997; Dirr 1905: 163, 232], as opposed to d=ˈax- 'to lie; to lie down' (pl. subj.) [Uslar 1979: 659, 997; Dirr 1905: 162, 232].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: d=ˈaq- {дахъуб} 'to lie; to lie down' [Genko 2005: 59]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: d=ˈaq- {дабхъуб} 'to lie; to lie down' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 137].
Apparently all Southern verbs are applied to both sg. and pl. subject.
TAB_NOTES:
We presume that Tabasaran verbs which are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] for the concept 'to lie down' actually possess polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'.
The Khanag opposition d=ˈaq- 'to lie (sg. subj.)' / d=ˈax- 'to lie (pl. subj.)' can be either a Proto-Tabasaran archaism, lost in other subdialects, or a local introduction.
The same in Literary Lezgi: qːat=kːˈi- [imperf.] / qːat=kːˈa- [perf.] {къаткун} 'to lie / to lie down' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 182; Gadzhiev 1950: 331; Gaydarov et al. 2009: 181; Haspelmath 1993: 42, 501, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 399] (it must be noted that clusters like tk are prohibited in the literary language [Haspelmath 1993: 47]).
Cf. in the dialects of the Samur group: Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect) qːatː=xˈa- [perf.] 'to lie' [Meylanova 1964: 249], Jaba qːat=ka- [perf.] 'to lie' [Ganieva 2007: 196 sentence 68], Qurush qːat=ka- [perf.] 'to lie' [Ganieva 2008: 256 sentence 128, 257 sentence 143].
The fluctuation k(ː) ~ x seems strange, but these verbs should hardly be kept apart from each other. One possibility might be a sporadic dissimilative fricativization tk > tx in the cluster.
Initial qːat(ː)= (i.e. qːa=t(ː)=?) are desemanticized spatial prefixes.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔaχär-2
NCED: 273. Distribution: The verbs for 'to lie' and 'to sleep' must be analyzed together with each other. The basic data can be summarized as follows:
'TO LIE / TO SLEEP'
Proto-CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- [NCED: 1037]
lie/sleep
sleep
sleep
*ʔaχär- [NCED: 273]
lie, sleep (complex verb)
sleep
sleep
sleep
lie/sleep
sleep
*näwƛʼ [NCED: 619]
sleep (complex verb)
*ʔaqʼel- [NCED: 264]
lie
lie
*ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278]
lie
k=utʼ-lie
*ʔaqɨ-(?)[NCED: 264]
lie
*ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644]
lie
First of all, attention should be paid to two semantic isoglosses, which seriously obscure the picture. The first isogloss is the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' (usually with the shift 'to lie' > 'to sleep', but not obligatory). It seems ancient, since it affects all of Lezgian (including Caucasian Albanian) as well as some other Dagestanian languages. The second isogloss is the derivation 'to fall' > 'to lie' (> 'to sleep'), which affects the Samur territory (Nuclear Lezgian) and seems relatively recent.
Two main candidates for the Proto-Lezgian meanings 'to lie' and 'to sleep' are *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- and *ʔaχär-. Before discussing them in details, some clearly innovative formations should be ruled out.
In the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch, 'to sleep' can be expressed analytically as 'to be in sleeping', in conjunction with the Common Proto-Lezgian noun *näwƛʼ 'dream, sleeping' [NCED: 619]. This formation competes with the verb bas-kʼ-esun (< *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-) 'to lie / to sleep' in both Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi, but apparently such an analytical construction is a relatively early innovation of the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch.
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the meaning 'to lie' originates from 'to fall, go sprawling' (cf. synchronic polysemy in Budukh). The original meaning of *ʔaqʼel- [NCED: 264] was something like 'to dangle, shake', as follows from the same semantics in Aghul-Tabasaran, on the one hand, and in some other North Caucasian groups, on the other.
In Tsakhur, 'to lie (animated subj.)' is expressed by *ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278], whose original labile meaning was 'to put / to lie (inanimate subj.)', as follows from its Lezgian cognates. Additionally, this root can acquire the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' in some Tsakhur dialects.
In Rutul, the original verb for 'to lie' seems to be k=utʼ-, without further etymology. This stem tends to be superseded with the root *ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644] 'to fall, go sprawling' in modern Rutul dialects.
In Aghul dialects, the most complicated situation is observed with four or five verbs for 'to lie', three of which are also attested in the meaning 'to sleep'. It seems that the most economic scenario is to reconstruct *ʔaχär- with Proto-Aghul polysemy 'to lie / to sleep'. Other verbs are recent dialectal introductions: *ʔarɬɨ- [NCED: 602] 'to fall' > 'to lie', 'to sleep'; *ʔarkɨr- / *ʔerkɨr- [NCED: 266] 'to fall down' > 'to lie', 'to sleep'; *ʔeɬːʷɨ- [NCED: 278] > 'to lie'.
In Tabasaran, 'to lie' is expressed with *ʔaqɨ- [NCED: 264], whose original meaning could be 'to fall' vel sim., this root looks rather problematic etymologically: pace [NCED], Archi =ˈaχa- 'to lie' can be satisfactorily etymologized as *ʔaχär-, whereas Aghul aqu xa- 'to lie' should rather be analyzed as prefixed a=q=ux-a-.
In Lezgi, *ʔikʷän- (~ -l-) [NCED: 644] 'to fall, go sprawling' shifted to the meaning 'to lie' (the same development as in Rutul).
Finally, we can return to *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn- [NCED: 1037] and *ʔaχär- [NCED: 273]. The first one, *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-, denotes both 'to lie' and 'to sleep' in Caucasian Albanian and Udi. It also survived in two Nuclear Lezgian languages (Tsakhur, Lezgi), where it means 'to sleep'.
The second one, *ʔaχär-, means 'to lie' in Archi (with the synchronic derivative 'to sleep'), but 'to sleep' in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian.
In such a mirror situation, external North Caucasian comparison should be involved. The external data point to the primary meaning 'to sleep' or 'to dream' for Lezgian *ʔ[a]s(ː)ʷɨn-, thus we postulate this root as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'to sleep'. This stem acquired the polysemy 'to lie / to sleep' in the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch (due to the common areal isogloss), but survived as 'to sleep' in some West Lezgian (Tsakhur) and East Lezgian (Lezgi) languages.
On the contrary, Lezgian *ʔaχär- originates from the Proto-North Caucasian root with the meaning 'to fall'. Thus, we postulate *ʔaχär- as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to lie', assuming the shift 'to fall' > 'to lie' in Proto-Lezgian. It was lost as a verb in the Udi branch after the verb 'to sleep' acquired the polysemy 'to sleep / to lie'. In most Nuclear Lezgian lects, *ʔaχär- primarily meant both 'to sleep / to lie' (the isogloss of polysemy), but currently 'to lie' is normally expressed by various verbs for 'to fall' (a more recent semantic isogloss). Additional evidence for the original meaning 'to lie' is the Vartashen Udi adjective b=arχi 'transversal, horizontal' (< *'lying') [Gukasyan 1974: 71] with the fossilized class prefix. Such a scenario is not straightforward, but seems the most economic one.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Shaumyan 1941: 141. The two former stems are from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988]; the latter one q=ark-i- is from [Shaumyan 1941: 141] (with explicit polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'). Note the Burshag stem ʢ=ark-i- 'to sleep' q.v., modified with another prefix.
The same root in the Khudig subdialect: H=ark-i- 'to lie' [Shaumyan 1941: 133 f., 149] ("He [the third son of the king] used to lie in ashes") and q=ark-i- 'to lie; to lie down' [Shaumyan 1941: 141] ("He lay on the bed").
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221. Not found in [Gukasyan 1974; Mobili 2010]. The form maˤyin papaš is a collocation: literally 'black entrails', with papaš 'entrails, pluck' [Gukasyan 1974: 172, 187].
Fähnrich 1999: 23; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. Confirmed by Yu. Lander's field records from the Zinobiani (Oktomberi) village on 2011. In [Fähnrich 1999], glossed with polysemy: 'liver / kidney' (the latter meaning seems an error). In [Starchevskiy 1891], 'liver' is translated as maˤin pušˤpuš or simply pušˤpuš. As in the Nidzh case, literally = 'black entrails' with Vartashen pušˤpuš 'entrails, pluck' [Gukasyan 1974: 191].
Another term for 'liver' may be zizam, which is translated as 'liver, spleen' in [Fähnrich 1999: 35] and only as 'liver' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 204, 247] (there is no term for 'spleen' in [Dzheiranishvili 1971]). However, the latter glossing seems erroneous, because zizam is consistently glossed only as 'spleen' in other sources [Gukasyan 1974: 118; Mobili 2010: 298; Schiefner 1863: 93; Starchevskiy 1891: 506], and, furthermore, this word originates from the Proto-Lezgian term for 'spleen'.
A third hypothetical candidate for 'liver' is ǯigär, which is glossed in [Schulze 2001: 272] as 'liver; courage', although this is unattested in the direct anatomic meaning in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902]. The Udi word was borrowed from Azerbaijani *ǯigär (> Modern ǯiyär) 'liver, lung; courage', ultimately from Persian ǯigar 'liver; courage'. It is interesting that ǯigär {джигаьр} is quoted in [Gukasyan 1974: 245] as a synonym for a word tiχˤ {тиъх}, although the entry tiχˤ is missing from [Gukasyan 1974]. Additionally, in [Dabakov 2008: 359] there is a word tiχˤmiχ {тиъхмиъх} 'entrails, pluck' (the same term is quoted as tɨχmɨχ 'entrails, pluck' in [Mobili 2010: 266]). An unclear situation.
UDI_NOTES:
No candidates except for *maˤin papaš ~ pušˤpuš, literally 'black entrails'. Nidzh papaš and Vartashen pušˤpuš 'entrails' are obviously related, but details are obscure; this looks like a reduplicated formation or a loanwords from an unknown source.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:dilˈikʼ-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 221, 373; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 220; Mikailov 1967: 180. Borrowed from Lak tːilikʼ 'liver' (in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed", without the source).
Authier 2009: 23, 37, 350. The collocation leha taχul literally means 'black taχul'.
A second term for 'liver' is ǯigar [Authier 2009: 101], borrowed from Azerbaijani *ǯigär (> Modern ǯiyär) 'liver, lung; courage', ultimately from Persian ǯigar 'liver; courage'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221], 'liver' is enigmatically glossed as baʁɨr opkʸa {багъыр опкя}; the first word could indeed denote 'liver', borrowed from Azerbaijani baɣɨr 'liver', whereas the second one is the modern depharyngealized variant of oˤpkʸä 'lung' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 34].
Ibragimov 1978: 115; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221. Not attested in [Dirr 1912]. In [Ibragimov 1978], the variant lɨχˤdɨ laqʼ 'liver' is also quoted, literally 'black laqʼ'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 179; Ibragimov 1978: 194. In another passage, Ibragimov transcribes the Ixrek form as laqʼˤ [Ibragimov 1978: 222], which seems an error (cf. the Shinaz form below). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 221], erroneously quoted as laqʼ {лакь}.
Borch-Khnov dialect: laqʼ [Ibragimov 1978: 237]. For the Shinaz dialect, the form laqʼˤ, with unexpected pharyngealization, is quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 162].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: likʼ 'liver' [Uslar 1979: 842, 1001] (in [Dirr 1905: 193] lekʼ is incorrectly glossed as 'lung'). The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: likʼ {ликI} 'liver' [Genko 2005: 115].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35. The collocation kʼarˈu likʼ literally means 'black (kʼarˈu q.v.) clot of coagulated blood'.
In the Khiv subdialect: lekʼ ~ likʼ {лекI, ликI} with polysemy: 'liver / lung' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: likʼ {ликI} 'liver' or kʼarˈu likʼ 'black likʼ' = 'liver' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218] (the collocation lizˈi likʼ 'white likʼ' denotes 'spleen').
TAB_NOTES:
After the Azerbaijani pattern 'black X' = 'liver' was introduced in Southern Tabasaran, the plain likʼ acquired the meaning 'clot of coagulated blood' in Kondik.
The same in Literary Lezgi: leqʼ {лекь} 'liver' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 223; Gadzhiev 1950: 536; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut liqʼ 'liver' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 35].
Proto-Lezgian:*läƛʼ2
NCED: 586. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'liver' in all Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Alyk Kryts), therefore can be safely reconstructed as 'liver' in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. External comparison confirms that *läƛʼ was the Proto-Lezgian term for 'liver' as well.
The Azerbaijani analytical pattern 'black X' = 'liver', as opposed to 'white X' = 'lung', has been introduced in many languages (Udi, Kryts, Budukh, Rutul, Tabasaran).
Under the influence of such a construction, Lezgian *χultːul / *χːultːul 'lung' [NCED: 901] acquired the meaning 'liver' in Alyk Kryts. Similarly, in Southern Tabasaran, *läƛʼ 'liver' acquired the meaning 'clot of coagulated blood' in isolated use.
In Udi, the old root was superseded with obscure forms papaš ~ pušˤpuš (cf. [NCED: 868] sub hypothetical Proto-Lezgian *pVršːʷ- (~ -l-) with the semantics of 'bubble').
In Archi, the word for 'liver' was borrowed from Lak. Additionally, in Udi, Kryts and, perhaps, in some other languages, the Azerbaijani-Persian loanword may occur.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, although in Kryts, the form was influenced by the adjective 'black', and in Tsakhur, by the word for 'spleen'.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] a corrupted variant aqa-tu-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb ˈaqa 'to be long' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190]. Polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal)'; widely applicable according to examples in [Chumakina et al. 2007] and [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 190]: "long road", "long street", "long dress", "long beard", "long report".
Another common adjective is lˈaːχa-tːu-class with polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal) / tall (of person)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273, 357; Mikailov 1967: 190; Dirr 1908: 164, 207], a participle from the stative verb lˈaːχa 'to be long, tall' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273]. It is claimed in [Chumakina et al. 2007] that lˈaːχa-tːu-class in the spatial meaning is applied to horizontal objects only, although examples in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 273] and [Chumakina et al. 2007] contradict this: "long road", "long fingers", "long neck", "long dress", "long life", "long lesson", "long sound", "tall person".
Authier 2009: 69, 119, 250, 366. Infixal class exponents: ʕa-class-qa. Polysemy: 'long (spatial) / long (temporal)'. This looks like the same root as Kryts proper ʕaχ- (< Proto-Lezgian *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420]), but the shift χ > Alyk q seems inexplicable.
Meylanova 1984: 39, 42, 211; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. The variant in h- comes from [Meylanova 1984]. Historically ʕa-p-χu with the fossilized infixal class exponent -p-.
Looks like an old masdar in -y from the lost stative verb 'to be long'. Note the gemination of -l- in the Gelmets and Tsakhur-Kum forms (for which cf. [Ibragimov 1990: 203-204]), influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 273, 336; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 584. Note the gemination of -l-, influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
An interesting counterpart is observed in the Borch-Khnov dialect: filiχ-id 'long' [Ibragimov 1978: 234].
Note the pharyngealization, which is retained only in the Mukhad form (if Ibragimov's transcription is correct). The Rutul root χVlVχ- seems morphologically non-analyzable. Possibly represents a partially reduplicated stem (although the pattern of reduplication is strange).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yarχˈi 'long (spatial, temporal)' [Uslar 1979: 749, 992; Dirr 1905: 179, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Genko 2005: 200].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Genko 2005: 200]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yarχˈi {ярхи} 'long' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 362].
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarʁˈi {яргъи} 'long' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 404; Gadzhiev 1950: 175; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yerʁˈi 'long' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236].
Proto-Lezgian:*hˤalχä-3
NCED: 550. Distribution: As proposed in [NCED: 550], there were several Proto-Lezgian verbal roots with similar phonetic shapes and close meanings, which partially contaminated in individual languages. Two of them are main candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term '(to be) long'.
The first one is *[hˤ]alχä- [NCED: 550], which means 'to be long' (> 'long') in Archi, on the one hand, and 'long' in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). It should be noted that the Tsakhur form is morphologically an old masdar from the lost verb. In Udi and Budukh, however, this root is attested in the meaning 'up, on top'.
The second is *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420], whose adjectival derivates are attested with the meaning 'long' in Udi, on the one hand, and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the other. In Archi and the rest of Nuclear Lezgian, this stem means 'to be high' or 'to rise, raise'.
Two roots mirror each other in this "criss-crossed" situation. External comparison, however, strongly suggests that *[hˤ]alχä- [NCED: 550] is to be reconstructed with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'to be long', whereas *hˤ[a]χV- [NCED: 420] meant 'to rise, be high'.
The second Archi verb 'to be long' originates from *yaqːV- [NCED: 275], whose original meaning was '(to be) high' vel sim. In Alyk Kryts, the etymologically unclear word ʕaqa 'long' occurs.
Replacements: {'to rise, be high' > 'long'} (Udi, Kryts, Budukh, Archi), {'(to be) long' > 'up, on top'} (Udi, Budukh).
Reconstruction shape: Exact reconstruction of the initial laryngeal is unclear; metathesis of l and χ is observed in several lects.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be long'.
Ibragimov 1990: 39; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 104. Missing from [Kibrik et al. 1999]. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 104], quoted as wixːʸ- (pl. wixːʸ-ar {виххьяр}) with tense -xːʸ-, which seems an error, cf. the plural form wixʸ-ar {вихьʹар} in [Ibragimov 1990: 39] and lax -xʸ- in Mikik. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 160], erroneously quoted as wix {вихь}.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: nicː 'louse' [Uslar 1979: 871, 991; Dirr 1905: 198, 225]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Genko 2005: 127].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Genko 2005: 127]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: nicː {ницц} 'louse' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244].
The same in Literary Lezgi: net [abs.] / netʼ-rˈe- [obl.] / netʼ-ˈer [pl.] {нет} 'louse' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 252; Gadzhiev 1950: 104; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut net [abs.] / net-rˈa- [obl.] / netː-ˈer [pl.] 'louse' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 94].
In the Usukhchay subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect (Samur group) netʼ shifted to the meaning 'nit' [Meylanova 1964: 225], but the new Usukhchay word for 'louse' is not documented.
Proto-Lezgian:*näcʼː1
NCED: 846. Distribution: This stem is retained as the root for 'louse' in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi) and in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), having been lost in the rest of Nuclear Lezgian.
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), *näcʼː was superseded with *loɬ(ʷ) [LEDb: #162]. Further etymology of the latter is unclear. It must be noted that *loɬ(ʷ) 'louse' is not a Proto-Nuclear Lezgian replacement, but represents a more late introduction of Proto-South Lezgian and Proto-West Lezgian (perhaps of areal nature).
Gukasyan 1974: 130; Mobili 2010: 155; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Dirr 1903: 14, 16, 25, 51, 63, 93; Schiefner 1863: 77; Schulze 2001: 286. Polysemy: 'man / husband'. In [Dirr 1903], as in some other cases, consistently transcribed with šˤ (išˤu {иш̆у}); also sporadically with šˤ in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], although the normal spelling is š, see [Schulze 2001: 286].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *išu [sg.] / *iš-qːar- [pl.]. The plural form is apparently an old compound. Its second element qːar is unattested elsewhere in Modern Udi, but corresponds to Caucasian Albanian qʼar 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic) (q.v.)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30]. The plural stem iš-qːar- spread into singular forms in Nidzh (a normal process for such words), but became lost in modern Vartashen. The most archaic situation is apparently attested in archaic Vartashen, where iš-qːar- is retained for plural (see [Schiefner 1863: 77] and [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902: Mk. 6.44], although in [Dirr 1903: 25] a "regular" paradigm of išu is quoted). Contamination with Azerbaijani kiši 'man' (as proposed in [Schulze 2001: 287]) is improbable and unnecessary.
Caucasian Albanian: išu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21, 48]. Suppletive paradigm with the following polysemy: išu 'man; person' [sg.] / žin 'men; people' [pl.], see [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-17, 21, 48].
Authier 2009: 31, 39, 68, 69, 74, etc. Specified as 'married man' in [Authier 2009: 30, 34]. The borrowed term adami 'person' q.v. can also be used in the meaning 'man', e.g., [Authier 2009: 73].
Another loanword, kʸiši 'man' (< Azerbaijani kiši 'man'), can also be used [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: adami [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59]. Polysemy: 'man / husband'. Distinct from inherited wɨɣɨl 'husband (said by wife of her husband when addressing him in the 3rd person)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220].
Dirr 1912: 127, 195; Ibragimov 1978: 26, 42, 115. In [Dirr 1912], quoted with assimilation: wuɣɨl. According to [Dirr 1912], polysemy: 'man / husband' ('male (n.)' is expressed by the suffixed wuɣɨl-dɨ). According to [Ibragimov 1978], with polysemy: 'male (n.) / man / husband'. In [Makhmudova 2001: 11, 18], 'man; male (n.)' is quoted with a suffixal extension (wɨɣɨl-dɨ) in sg., and in plain root form(wɨɣl-e) in pl. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 71], erroneously quoted as wɨʁɨl-dɨ {выгъылды}.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. Final -r is the attributive suffixe (fossilized class exponent) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Strictly speaking, Kibrik & Kodzasov's Burshag form ile-r 'man' looks either like a recent introduction or an occasional formation, because both in [Shaumyan 1941: 142] and [Suleymanov 2003: 87] ile-r is translated as 'male (n.); male (adj.)' (this is the Common Aghul adjective for 'male', see Shaumyan's data), whereas for 'man' it is the wandering loanword that is quoted in these sources: Burshag armi, Khudig almi 'man; person' [Shaumyan 1941: 143; Suleymanov 2003: 86].
Distinct from Burshag šːʷuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Magometov 1970: 23, 39; Suleymanov 2003: 205; Shaumyan 1941: 164] (glossed as 'husband; man' by Suleymanov and Shaumyan; transcribed as šʷuy {швуй} by Suleymanov). Cf. the etymological counterparts in other subdialects: Arsug šʷuy, Khudig xüy 'husband' [Magometov 1970: 39; Suleymanov 2003: 205].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59. The same loanword in the Usug subdialect: idemi 'man' [Shaumyan 1941: 143].
Distinct from the inherited Richa šuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59] and uqʼar-f 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (← uqʼar 'ram').
Gequn Aghul:eremi-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Dirr 1907: 113; Shaumyan 1941: 143. Cf. the example: "If you are a man, stay until he comes in the city" [Dirr 1907: 51].
Distinct from the inherited šuy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Dirr 1907: 155; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by Dirr and Shaumyan), uqʼar-f 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] and ile-f 'male (adj.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 142].
Fite Aghul:edim-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59.
Distinct from the inherited xüy 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59; Magometov 1970: 39; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by Shaumyan) and ilːi-t 'male (n.); male (adj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
Aghul (proper):idemi-1
Suleymanov 2003: 86; Shaumyan 1941: 143. The same loanword in the Tsirkhe subdialect: arami 'man' [Shaumyan 1941: 143].
Distinct from Tpig inherited šuy 'husband' [Suleymanov 2003: 205; Shaumyan 1941: 164]; glossed as 'husband; man' by both Suleymanov and Shaumyan) and ilːe-f 'male (n.); male (adj.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 87; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
AGX_NOTES:
It is likely that šːʷuy (šuy, xüy) must be posited as the Proto-Aghul term for 'man (male human being)', with polysemy: 'man / husband'. Synchronically, šuy is frequently glossed as 'man; husband' [Dirr 1907; Shaumyan 1941; Suleymanov 2003], despite the fact that in all found textual examples, šuy specifically means 'husband' rather than generic 'man'. Aghul šuy also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Magometov 1970: 89], which also confirms the proto-meaning 'man'.
In modern dialects the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term has been introduced for the meaning 'man': idemi with the rhotacized variant eremi (for the rhotacism in Aghul and Tabasaran dialects see [Suleymanov 1993: 69 f.; NCED: 125]), further armi and even almi. On the contrary, in the Koshan dialect the old word for 'male' (ile-r) shifted to the meaning 'man'.
The situation in the Khanag subdialect is almost identical: žʷi [abs.] / žʷiw-ˈ [obl.] 'man' [Uslar 1979: 686, 998; Dirr 1905: 168, 234]. Opposed to žilˈi 'male (adj.)', with the class exponents: žilˈu-w 'male (n.)', žilˈu-r 'husband' [Uslar 1979: 686, 998; Dirr 1905: 168, 234]. The additional Khanag term is šʷi [abs.] / šʷiw-ˈ [obl.] 'husband' [Uslar 1979: 987, 998] (not quoted in [Dirr 1905]).
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: žʷi [abs.] / žʷiw-ˈ [obl.] {жви} 'man' [Genko 2005: 69]. Opposed to žilˈi {жили} 'of male sex', with the class exponents: žilˈu-w {жилув} 'male (n.)', žilˈu-r {жилур} 'husband' [Genko 2005: 65]. As in the case of Khanag, there also exists an additional Khyuryuk term for 'husband': šʷi [abs.] / šʷiw-ˈ [obl.] {шви} [Genko 2005: 192].
Somewhat differently in the Khiv subdialect: žilˈi {жили} 'of male sex', with class exponents: žilˈi-b {жилиб} 'male (n.)', žilˈi-r {жилир} 'husband' [Genko 2005: 65] (these forms are not marked by Genko as Khiv due to accidental omission of the plus sign). 'Man' is expressed as Khiv žilˈi žʷuw {жили жвув}, literary 'male žʷuw' [Genko 2005: 65]; Khiv žʷuw {жвув} also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Genko 2005: 69]. There exists an additional Khiv term for 'husband': šʷuw {швув} - the oblique stem, used only in the expression 'to marry', literally 'to go to the husband' [Genko 2005: 193].
The simplest system is attested in Literary Tabasaran: žilˈi {жили} 'male (adj.)', with class exponent: žilˈi-r {жилир} with polysemy: 'man / husband' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 163]. The old term žʷi [abs.] / žʷuw-ˈ [obl.] {жви} shifted to the meaning 'strong young guy, daring fellow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 160]; literary žʷi / žʷuw- also serves as an ethnonymical suffix [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 160] and is retained with the meaning 'man' in the compound ahlˈi-žʷi 'elderly man' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 49]. Two loanwords with the meaning 'man' are also present in Literary Tabasaran: admˈi {адми} 'person (q.v.); man' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 50], ultimately borrowed from Arabic; erkˈek {эркек} 'man; male (n.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 356], borrowed from Azerbaijani erkäk 'male (n.), man'.
TAB_NOTES:
The terms žʷi (obl. žʷuw-) 'man' and žili- 'male (adj.); male (n.); husband' can safely be reconstructed for Proto-Tabasaran. The Northern dialect is the most archaic; in the Southern subdialects žʷi 'man' tends to be superseded with žili- or with loans.
The Southern absolutive form žʷuw was levelled after the oblique forms (the original paradigm is retained in the Northern dialect).
The main problem is the word šʷi (obl. šʷiw- ~ šʷuw-) 'husband', attested in some Northern and Southern subdialects (see the data above; šʷi / šʷuw- 'husband' is also mentioned in [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 348] as "dialectal"). Both žʷi 'man' and šʷi 'husband' originate from Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy 'man', but šʷi 'husband' apparently represents a wandering loanword, which ultimately originates from a certain Tabasaran dialect (or even a distinct Lezgian language), where such a reflex of *šː is regular.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: itːˈim {итим} 'man' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 141; Gadzhiev 1950: 370; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522]. Distinct from inherited ʁül {гъуьл} 'husband' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 95; Haspelmath 1993: 490].
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yetːˈem 'man' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59]. Distinct from inherited χül 'husband' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 59] and borrowed erkˈek 'male (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (< Azerbaijani erkäk 'male (n.), man').
Lezgi itːim, yetːem and the syncopated variant tːim represent a wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term for 'man; human being'.
The old root for ‘man’ is retained as a nominal male ethnonymical suffix: Literary -wi [abs.] / -žuw- [obl.] [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 126; Haspelmath 1993: 106], Yarki -ɣü, Gyune -gü, Akhty -žü [Meylanova 1964: 330].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːʷiy1
NCED: 336. Distribution: This stem is attested with the meaning 'man' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in some Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: West Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Aghul, Tabasaran. In Lezgi, this root has survived as a male ethnonymical suffix.
In Archi, the meaning 'man' is expressed by *wV(r)š- [NCED: 1043], which was lost in the rest of Lezgian (although cf. the Caucasian Albanian plural stem uš-b-o 'husbands' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-35]). Therefore, its original semantics cannot be established, but external North Caucasian comparison points to the meaning 'male' or, more narrowly, 'bull-calf'.
In Rutul, the root *morƛːɨl / *uorƛːɨl 'male (n.)' [NCED: 830] has acquired the meaning 'man'.
Similarly, in Koshan Aghul and Literary Tabasaran, *šːʷiy 'man' was superseded with *ƛːilV- [NCED: 749], whose original meaning was 'male' at least on the Proto-East Lezgian level.
Superseded with Arabic or Azerbaijani loanwords in Tsakhur, Aghul and Tabasaran dialects.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular. Metathesis in Caucasian Albanian-Udi; fossilized plural suffix in West Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *šːʷiya-. It is possible to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian polysemy 'man / person', see notes on 'person'.
Common Udi *gele or *gölö. A possible etymology is proposed in [NCED: 410 f.] - a suffixal formation ge-le from the Lezgian verb *ʔekːV- 'to grow' (with the reduction of the first vowel). The root *ʔekːV- is actually very rarely attested as an independent verb in Lezgian languages, but the parallelism Udi ge-le 'many' ~ Tsakhur gey-class 'much, very' is important. On the other hand, Udi forms might be borrowed, but no appropriate sources have been revealed up to now (cf. Azerbaijani dialectal kalan 'many, numerous'). It is claimed in [Schulze 2001: 279] that the Udi terms were borrowed from Iranian (namely < Kurdish gala(k) 'much, very'), which does not seem very likely from a sociolinguistic point of view, since Kurdish linguistic influence on Udi is very modest (if it exists at all) and the idea of a borrowing of such a basic term from Kurdish can hardly be accepted.
Caucasian Albanian: avel 'many, much; more; enough' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7]. Gippert & Schulze's idea [Gippert et al. 2008: II-80, IV-7] that avel is borrowed from Armenian aweli 'exceeding, superfluous; more' is improbable both from a semantic (the Armenian term does not mean 'many') and sociolinguistic point of view (Armenian influence on Caucasian Albanian was apparently very weak, since there are only one or two reliable Armenian loans in the known Caucasian Albanian lexicon, see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-80 f.]). Distinct from hutʼun 'so much, so many' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-27].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Mikailov 1967: 194.
There are three standard ways to express the semantics of 'many' in Archi, and the available sources do not permit to establish the formal difference between them.
1) The uninflected adjective/adverb nˈaːqʼukan ~ nˈoːqʼukan ~ nˈoːqʼukun and inflected adjective nˈaːqʼukun-nu-class. Browsing through texts suggests that these words are the most frequent expressions for 'many'. That is why we prefer to fill the slot with these forms.
Examples with countable objects: "The king gave many gifts to the children and let them go" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 95]; "Many goods were spent on this" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 104]; "Many of Muha Muhammad's sheep have perished" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113]; "We have gathered many stones" [Chumakina et al. 2007]; "Many people were killed during the war" [Chumakina et al. 2007]; "Many people have come" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285]; "There are a lot of partridges around Archiba" [Mikailov 1967: 148]; "There are many birthmarks on her face" [Mikailov 1967: 149]; "When she cries, many tears fall down" [Mikailov 1967: 112].
Examples with uncountable objects: "Her husband just arrived and brought a lot of riches from Azerbaijan" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 46]; "I have plenty of troubles besides this"[Kibrik et al. 1977b: 97]; "I have a lot of money" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 117]; "There is plenty of stone in Archiba" [Mikailov 1967: 146]; "In winter there is a lot of snow here" [Mikailov 1967: 149]; "After that, a lot of food appeared before them" [Mikailov 1967: 156, 158]; "We have stayed there for a long time (= much time)" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 106]; "The husband became sad, he was very much worried" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 39]
Two other expressions for 'many' seem statistically less frequent.
2) The stative verb lˈabχan 'to be many, be much, be a lot' and the derived adverb lˈabχan-ši 'much, many' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270, 367; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609; Mikailov 1967: 190].
Examples with countable objects:
"To provide many sheep for the state..." [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 117]; "At that time there were many sheep" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113]; "There are many fruits here" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270]; "I have more text books than exercise books" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270]; "many people" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 112]; "The rich man had a few children, whereas the poor man had a lot" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 69].
One example with uncountable objects: "The Russians had much (war) force" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 170-171]
3) The adverb dunˈaːla ~ dunˈaːlu 'many, much, often' and the derived adjective dunˈaːla-tːi-class [Chumakina et al. 2007] [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 224; Dirr 1908: 142, 213]. These are probably normally applied to intensive or repetitive actions or abstract objects, as in, e.g., "He was beaten a lot" [Dirr 1908: 142]. Although there is a number of instances with countable objects: "Many houses" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 112]; "Many quarrels", "Many scuffles"[Kibrik et al. 1977b: 113, 114]; "[Formerly] there were not many diseases" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116 f.]; "At that time many poor men were in the kolkhoz" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116]; "Many men", "Many women", "Many rams" [Dirr 1908: 142]. It is claimed in [Chumakina 2009] that Archi dunˈaːlu is borrowed from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world', but this solution is improbable from the semantic point of view.
In one example nˈaːqʼukan and dunˈaːla function as virtual synonyms: "We frequently (dunˈaːla) went to Šura, Džungutay, Kumukh for trading, frequently (nˈaːqʼukan) went" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 115 f.]
Kryts (proper):parä-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Saadiev 1994: 419; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. In [Saadiev 1994] quoted as para. Polysemy: 'many, much / very'. A Wanderwort, attested in several Lezgian languages with irregular sound correspondences. Apparently a loanword of Iranian origin.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] also a synonym χayli 'many' is quoted, borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Alyk Kryts:χayla-1
Authier 2009: 107. Glossed as 'many, much, very'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Meylanova 1984: 101, 221; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Talibov 2007: 154. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609] quite erroneously quoted as "kiǯe, läħ" {кидже, лаьхI}. Polysemy: 'many (countable obj.) / much, a lot of (uncountable obj.) / very'. Cf. such examples as "Many years have passed" [Meylanova 1984: 101], "Brother has a lot of money" [Talibov 2007: 154], etc. Final -ki is the adjective suffix [Talibov 2007: 108], -ǯe is the adverbial suffix [Talibov 2007: 237].
A close synonym is χeyli {хейли} 'many, much' [Meylanova 1984: 146, 221; Talibov 2007: 154], borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Distinct from artuχ {артух} 'more; too much' [Meylanova 1984: 21].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 101, 104, 106, 108, 134, 152, 181, 201, 207, 213, 239, 286, 295, 361, 365, 426, 609, 692, etc.; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. Applied to countable and uncountable objects. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 369], inaccurately glossed as 'more, loudly, high'.
A less frequent word is χiːlʸǯe 'many, much (countable & uncountable obj.), enough' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 109, 152], borrowed from Azerbaijani xeylɨ-ǯä 'much, many, quite a lot, quite a few' (ultimately from Persian xeyliː 'much; very').
Cf. also non-frequent gʸeː-class ~ gʸey-class {гейб, гейд} 'much; very' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 117, 874, 895; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 112] (applied only to uncountable objects?).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: χˤa-class-adv.class-bɨ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233]. Applied to countable objects (final -bɨ is the plural marker; for uncountable objects the simple χˤa-class-adv is used).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609], the modern depharyngealized variant is quoted: χa-class-adv.class {хатта}. Applied to countable and uncountable objects.
TKR_NOTES:
Tsakhur χˤa- (~ χe-) represents the same root as 'big' q.v.
Mukhad Rutul:bala {бала}4
Dirr 1912: 124, 194; Ibragimov 1978: 71, 76; Makhmudova 2001: 201, 206; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'.
Ixrek Rutul:balä {балаь}4
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 32, 355, 434; In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 609], quoted as bala. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'.
Luchek Rutul:bala4
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
RUT_NOTES:
Term of unclear origin; possibly an Iranian loanword?
Koshan Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Suleymanov 2003: 141; Shaumyan 1941: 153. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233], pːara is applied to countable objects, distinct from acʼina 'much (uncountable obj.)'. In [Shaumyan 1941: 130-131], however, there is an example where Burshag pːara is applied to an uncountable object: "This merchant had a lot of riches".
Keren Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to countable objects. Distinct from acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Gequn Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233; Dirr 1907: 28, 137, 176; Shaumyan 1941: 153. According to Dirr's examples, applied to both countable and uncountable objects with polysemy: 'many / much / very': "many houses", "much money", "a very big house". It is noted [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233], however, that pːara is applied only to countable objects, whereas for 'much (uncountable obj.)' the inherited form acʼuna is used.
Fite Aghul:pːara-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to countable objects. Distinct from the inherited acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Aghul (proper):pːara-1
Suleymanov 2003: 141; Shaumyan 1941: 153. Applied to countable objects. Polysemy: 'many / very'. Distinct from inherited acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 134 sub mič].
AGX_NOTES:
Initial pː- in pːara points to a non-inherited form; apparently a loanword of Iranian origin. A Wanderwort in this region.
The form acʼina ~ acʼuna 'much (uncountable obj.)' is the past participle from the verb acʼ-i- ~ acʼ-a- 'to fill (intrans.)' (see the entry 'full').
Northern Tabasaran:aχˤ=čʼʷˈa5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
Loanword in the Khanag subdialect: gizˈaf with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Uslar 1979: 643, 997; Dirr 1905: 45, 160, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: gizˈaf {гизаф} 'many, much, very' [Genko 2005: 37].
Southern Tabasaran:aχˤu=čʼʷˈiʔ5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects.
Loanword in the Khiv subdialect: gizˈaf {гизаф} with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Genko 2005: 37]. The second Khiv term is the inherited ˈacʼ-nu {ацIну} 'many' or 'much' [Genko 2005: 21] - a participle from acʼ- 'to fill'. Difference between gizˈaf and ˈacʼ-nu is unknown.
The same loanword in Literary Tabasaran: gizˈaf {гизаф} with polysemy: 'many, much, very' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 99, 429].
TAB_NOTES:
Dyubek aχˤ-čʼʷˈa and Kondik aχˤu-čʼʷˈiʔ contain the adjective aχˤ- 'big' q.v., whereas the second element is apparently the substantive 'heap', attested as Northern (Dyubek) čʼʷˈeʔ-e 'heap, hill' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 193], Southern (Khiv) čʼʷeʔ {чъеъ} 'heap, pile' [Genko 2005: 183], - i.e. 'many' as 'a large heap'. Formally, this expression should be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'many'. Another inherited form is Khiv ˈacʼ-nu (literally 'filled'), but its exact meaning - 'many' or 'much' - is unknown. In most dialects the inherited terms were superseded with the loanword gizaf, borrowed from Persian gizaːf 'very much, innumerable, extreme'. In [Magometov 1965: 330], gizaf is quoted as the main Tabasaran word for 'many'.
Gyune Lezgi:gizˈaf-1
Uslar 1896: 379, 617. Applied to both countable and uncountable objects. Polysemy: 'many / much / very'. Borrowed from Persian gizaːf 'very much, innumerable, extreme'.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: gzaf {гзаф} 'many / much / very' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 86; Gadzhiev 1950: 363; Haspelmath 1993: 253, 489, 522].
Another loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut pːarˈa 'many' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233] (applied to both countable and uncountable objects). The form is also attested in some other Lezgian languages; probably of Iranian origin.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔaχˤɨ-3
NCED: 511. Distribution: This word is quite prone to borrowing among Lezgian lects. The Proto-Lezgian term cannot be reconstructed with certainty. The best candidate is *ʔaχˤɨ- [NCED: 511], which means 'many' in Tsakhur and 'to be enough' in one of the outliers, Archi (class=aχˤ); it is also proposed in [NCED] that Budukh läħ-ki 'many' contains the same root, but the origin of initial l- is unclear. In Tsakhur, Tabasaran, non-Koshan Aghul, this root forms the adjective 'big' q.v. - it seems, however, to be a late areal innovation: 'many' > 'big'.
The second candidate, which is actually not significantly weaker than the first one, is *l[a]wχ- [NCED: 754]. It means 'many' in Archi (although it is not the most basic expression for this meaning) and 'to a large extent' in Lezgi. Both competing roots, *ʔaχˤɨ- and *l[a]wχ-, possess external North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'many'.
In Tabasaran, 'many' is expressed analytically as 'a large heap'. Additionally, in Khiv Tabasaran, the participle from the verb 'to be full' (*hˤacʼɨ-) can be used for 'many'.
A morphologically unclear form nˈaːqʼukan 'many' (with vowel fluctuation) occurs in Archi (cf. the etymological proposal in [NCED: 594]). Caucasian Albanian avel 'many' is, likewise, unclear etymologically.
In some lects, 'many' is expressed with words that look like loanwords, although the source of borrowing has not been identified (Iranian?): Udi gele ~ gölö (cf., however, its etymology proposed in [NCED: 410]), Kryts, Aghul parä ~ pːara, Rutul bala ~ balä.
In Kryts, Tabasaran, Lezgi, only loanwords of Azerbaijani-Persian origin are attested.
Distinct from various specific terms like menteš {ментеш} 'meat of abdomen' [Meylanova 1984: 108], čʼil {чIил} 'dried meat' [Meylanova 1984: 158] and so on.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 314, 356; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 303. Ablaut paradigm: yak [abs.] / yigː-ɨ- [obl.]. Note the gemination of -gː- - probably an archaism, rather than the influence of the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Suleymanov 2003: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 147. In [Shaumyan 1941], erroneously transcribed as yakʼ.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Kurag yakː 'meat' [Shaumyan 1941: 147; Magometov 1970: 206 sentences 11-12] (the Tsirkhe form is erroneously transcribed as yakʼ in [Shaumyan 1941]).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yakː 'meat' [Uslar 1979: 745, 998; Dirr 1905: 178, 234]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yakː {якк} 'meat' [Genko 2005: 199].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yikː {йикк} 'meat' [Genko 2005: 79]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yikː {йикк} 'meat' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185].
The same in Literary Lezgi: yak [abs.] / yakʼ-ˈu- [obl.] {як} 'meat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 402; Gadzhiev 1950: 373; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 522].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yak [abs.] / yakː-ˈɨ- [obl.] 'meat' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 121].
Proto-Lezgian:*yaƛʼː1
NCED: 945. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'meat' in all the lects, except for Tsakhur, where čurV 'meat' may originate from 'a k. of meat (e.g., beef)', if the comparison with Udi čur 'cow' is reliable [LEDb: #197] (without further etymology).
Replacements: {'beef, meat of cow' > 'meat'(?)} (Tsakhur).
Common Udi *χaš 'light; moon; month'. As suggested by the attested polysemy, the Udi term for 'moon' was derived from 'light' (derivation 'light' > 'moon' is typologically common, whereas vice versa is odd). Caucasian Albanian data confirm this solution. Note, however, that Caucasian Albanian-Udi *χaš 'light' lacks any etymology.
Alternately, it is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 27 f., 333] that χaš 'moon' is etymologically unrelated to χaš 'light' and represents a phonetic variant of Udi χač 'cross' (< Armenian χačʰ 'cross'). According to Schulze's idea, an old (unattested) Udi term for 'moon / Moon-god' was superseded by a new term for 'cross' (a symbol of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity) in the course of Christianization. Indeed, in many traditions around the world the words for 'sun' and 'moon' are syncretized with names of the Sun and Moon deities, and therefore these terms are potentially subject to replacement with loanwords, as the local cult changes. However, this hypothesis is currently refuted by Caucasian Albanian data. It should be noted that, pace [Schulze 2001], such modern Udi words as χaš-desun 'to be christened', χaš-tːal 'priest' etc. do not confirm that χaš could mean 'cross' or 'Christ', but represent the same semantics of 'light' (as plausibly pointed out in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-10], these words were created under the influence of the corresponding Georgian Christian terminology).
Caucasian Albanian: χaš-in 'bright, shining / moon' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. Derived from the substantive χaš 'shine, light' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. The old Lezgian term for 'moon' is retained as buz-e 'month' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 889, 895; Ibragimov 1990: 19; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 98; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 52. Polysemy: 'moon / month / horseshoe' ('moon, month' and 'horseshoe' formally differ in the pl. form). As noted in [Ibragimov 1990] and [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], used with ablaut paradigm: waz [abs.] / wuz- [obl.] / wuz- [pl.]. According to [Kibrik et al. 1999], however, currently the ablaut paradigm was almost eliminated (wuz- is retained in the pl. form wuz-aːr 'horseshoes').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: waʒ with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Uslar 1979: 620, 997; Dirr 1905: 158, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: waʒ {вазз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Genko 2005: 31].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: waz {ваз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Genko 2005: 31]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: waz {ваз} with polysemy: 'moon / month' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 92].
The same in Literary Lezgi: warz [abs.] / wacː-rˈa- [obl.] / warcː-ˈar [pl.] {варз} 'moon / month' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 72; Gadzhiev 1950: 341; Haspelmath 1993: 510, 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut warz [abs.] / waz-rˈa- [obl.] / warcː-ˈar [pl.] 'moon' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198].
Medial -r- in the absolutive form warz (warʒ) is etymologically unclear. As proposed in [NCED: 1044], warz could represent the old oblique stem (with the metathesis *cː-r > r-cː). It should be noted that morphophonologically, the synchronic Lezgi oblique stem wacː-ra- can be analyzed as {warcː-ra-} with regular simplification rCr > Cr [Haspelmath 1993: 63].
Proto-Lezgian:*wacː2
NCED: 1044. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'moon' in all the lects, except for Caucasian Albanian-Udi, where *wacː was lost, superseded with the root for 'light, shine; bright, shining' (the latter, however, lacks any etymology).
Common Udi *bur-uχ, with a transparent fossilized plural suffix -uχ. As proposed in [NCED: 1053] and now proven by Caucasian Albanian data, -ur- is, in fact, to be analyzed as another plural suffix, thus *b(u)-ur-uχ (for the synchronic Udi plural in -ur-uχ, which is normally restricted to monosyllabic roots, see [Schulze 2005: 151 f. (3.2.5.4 #2)].
Caucasian Albanian: bu 'mountain, hill' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11].
Distinct from sob 'alpine pasture used in winter' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 314; Mikailov 1967: 197; Dirr 1908: 181] (according to [Chumakina et al. 2007], the modern meaning is 'field (used as pasture or kept for hay making) that belongs to one family').
Distinct from mocˈor 'alpine pasture used in summer' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 280] (in [Chumakina et al. 2007] apparently incorrectly transcribed as mocːˈor), although this is glossed as 'mountain; alpine pasture used in summer' in [Mikailov 1967: 193] and [Dirr 1908: 168].
Distinct from yˈarχˤi 'pass in mountains, head of mountain pass' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 253], although this is glossed simply as 'mountain' in [Dirr 1908: 155].
Distinct from qˤun 'shoulder; protruding part of mountain' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 300]; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32], this term is incorrectly quoted as qün ~ qˤun {хъуьн ~ хъIун} 'mountain' (the former variant is a corrupted spelling for {хъуън} = qˤun).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 887, 892; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 319. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] the variant suwa {сува} is also quoted (the same in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32]).
A second term for 'mountain' is ban 'mountain; alpine pasture' [Dirr 1912: 14, 17, 18, 84, 103, 124, 188; Ibragimov 1978: 118; Makhmudova 2001: 15, 73, 80, 82, 192; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 32]. According to Dirr's and Makhmudova's example, both words were equally frequent in the early 20th century, but the inherited sɨw has been almost superseded by ban in the modern language.
The word ban, attested in Mukhad & Ixrek, looks like a recent loanword, although the source has not been identified (cf. Talysh band 'mountain, hill'; final clusters such as -NT are prohibited in Rutul).
Cf. also two terms with more specific meanings: Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad) bäˤl {баьIл} 'rock, cliff', dahar {дагьар} 'rock, cliff; precipice' [Ibragimov 1978: 136]; Muxrek bäl {баьл} 'rock, cliff' [Ibragimov 1978: 188]; Khnov dahar {дагьар} 'rock, cliff' [Ibragimov 1978: 293] (dahar is a loanword, see notes on Alyk Kryts 'stone').
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Kurag, Khpyuk su, suw- 'mountain' [Shaumyan 1941: 162; Magometov 1970: 155, 223 strophe III].
AGX_NOTES:
It is proposed in [NCED: 1053] that the transcription of the Koshan (Burshag) form sːu with tense sː is a misspelling in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. This is indeed likely from the etymological point of view, but it should be noted that the tenseness of sː is suspiciously confirmed by Dirr's transcription of archaic Gequn, and see also the Tabasaran form sːiw.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: siw 'mountain' [Uslar 1979: 907, 992; Dirr 1905: 204, 226].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: siw {сив} 'mountain' [Genko 2005: 139]. The same in the Kurikh subdialect: sːiw {ссив} 'mountain' [Genko 2005: 222].
Differently in the Khiv subdialect, where two terms are opposed: siw {сив} 'mountain (not big); upland' [Genko 2005: 139]; distinct from Khiv daʁ {дагъ} 'big mountain' [Genko 2005: 57], borrowed from Azerbaijani daɣ 'mountain'.
Only the loanword is represented in Literary Tabasaran: daʁ {дагъ} 'mountain' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 138].
TAB_NOTES:
Note sporadic tense sː in Northern Tabasaran, as well as the Southern (Kondik) ergative siw-ˈi - in the case of the etymological lax sibilant, one could rather expect the devoiced vowel in **si̥w-ˈi (on the other hand, it is natural to suppose that **si̥w-ˈi was levelled to siw-ˈi after the regular absolutive form siw). Cf. also the tense sː in some Aghul forms (q.v.).
Gyune Lezgi:daʁ-1
Uslar 1896: 400, 609. Borrowed from Azerbaijani daɣ 'mountain'.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: daʁ {дагъ} 'mountain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 105; Gadzhiev 1950: 146; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 523]. This is the default term for 'mountain' in the modern language. Distinct from the inherited suw {сув} 'mountain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 297; Haspelmath 1993: 506, 523], specified by Talibov & Gadzhiev as "poetic".
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut daʁ 'mountain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191]. Distinct from the inherited Khlyut term sɨw 'alpine pasture used in summer' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191].
Proto-Lezgian:*sɨwa1
NCED: 1053. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'mountain' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in most of Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, archaic Lezgi). Shifted to the meaning 'alpine pasture used in winter' in Archi, but was lost without a trace in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
In Archi, the meaning 'mountain' is expressed with *muhˤVl (~ -ʔ-) [NCED: 834] (lost in the rest of languages), which actually possesses better external North Caucasian comparanda with the meaning 'mountain' than *sɨwa, but the distribution suggests that the Archi meaning is innovative.
In Kryts, the old word was superseded with *pːaˤl(a) (~ -lː-) [NCED: 292], whose original meaning is unclear: its only Rutul cognate means 'rock, cliff'.
In many Nuclear Lezgian lects the inherited forms for 'mountain' are superseded with loanwords of Azerbaijani or, possibly, Iranian origin: Alyk Kryts, Budukh, Rutul dialects, Tabasaran dialects, Lezgi.
Replacements: {'mountain' > 'alpine pasture used in winter'} (Archi, Akhty Lezgi).
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular; with metathesis, > *wɨsa in Caucasian Albanian-Udi; reflexes of tense *sː in Aghul and Tabasaran are unclear.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *sɨwä-.
Gukasyan 1974: 114; Fähnrich 1999: 35; Mobili 2010: 159; Schiefner 1863: 93; Schulze 2001: 337; Starchevskiy 1891: 506. In [Fähnrich 1999: 13, 35] two additional corrupted variants are quoted: čˤomoχ ~ žomoχ. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] the stem variant žˤomo is also attested, used synonymously with žˤomo-χ (e.g., Mt. 12.34 "For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth (žˤomo-n) speaks", etc.). In [Schulze 2001: 337] Bežanovs' žˤomo is interpreted as 'lip', a glossing that is supported neither by Nidzh data (cf. Nidzh plain žˤomo 'mouth') nor by textual evidence - there are no words for 'lip' in the canonical Russian Gospel text, from which Bežanovs' text was translated. The normal word for 'lip(s)' is Nidzh ǯiǯir, Vartashen ǯeǯer [Gukasyan 1974: 245] (etymologically obscure, somewhat resembling Georgian dial. tʼutʼur-i 'lips', Laz tʼimtʼvir-i ~ tʼintʼvir-i 'lips').
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *žˤomo. The final -χ in the Vartashen form is the common plural suffix -uχ.
Caucasian Albanian: ǯˤumo-q ~ ǯˤumu-q [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-23]. The final -q is the common plural suffix -uq.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 316; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 197; Mikailov 1967: 198; Dirr 1908: 180, 220. Polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food) / edge, end / bank, shore' (the meanings 'mouth' and 'edge; bank' are opposed in oblique forms within the paradigm and, therefore, synchronically represent two different lexemes). Paradigm for the meaning 'mouth': sːob [abs.] / sːˈob-li [erg.] / sːebˈe [loc.]; the locative forms with the meanings 'edge' and 'bank' are regular: sːˈob-li-t or sːˈob-tːa.
Distinct from kʼuf {кIуф} 'mouth (of animal)', which can sometimes be applied to a human (polysemy: 'mouth of animal / toe of shoes / kiss') [Meylanova 1984: 99].
Distinct from siw {сив} with polysemy 'end, point / fast (abstinence from food)' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 314] (the meaning 'fast' points to the old semantics of 'mouth').
As follows from Dirr’s data, however, the archaic Mikik Tsakhur word for 'mouth' was siw. This was glossed as 'mouth' by R. von Erckert (apud [Dirr 1913: 201]) in the late 19th century, whereas in the early 20th century, siw 'mouth' was retained in the expression for 'fast (abstinence from food)' [Dirr 1913: 199]. According to [Dirr 1913: 201], the synchronic meaning of Mikik siw was 'end, edge' already in the early 20th century.
It is very likely that the Proto-Tsakhur term for 'mouth' was siw (the development 'mouth' > 'fast' is frequent in Lezgian), which has been recently superseded with ɣal under the influence on the part of Rutul (the original Tsakhur meaning of ɣal is unclear).
Cf. the secondary pharyngealization in Borch-Khnov ɣäˤl ~ yäˤl 'mouth' [Ibragimov 1978: 231]; in [Ibragimov 1978: 237, 282], however, this word is quoted simply as yäl.
The word ɣal can be formally reconstructed as the Proto-Rutul term for 'mouth', but the attested Ixrek form siw 'fast' should point that in Pre-Proto-Rutul siw meant 'mouth'. It is also possible that siw 'mouth' is attested in the word for 'face': Mukhad xe-su-m 'face' [Dirr 1912: 141], Ixrek xe-sɨ-m 'face' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 282], if analyze it as a compressed compound *xex-sɨ(w)-m, literally 'nose' (xex) + 'mouth' (thus [NCED: 584]), although the postulated suffix -m seems unclear.
The Keren (Richa) form sib with b is somewhat strange, because it should point to Proto-Aghul *b rather than *w (for the behaviour of Proto-Aghul *b in modern dialects see notes on 'to go').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ušʷ 'mouth' [Uslar 1979: 936, 1004; Dirr 1905: 211, 241] (note Uslar's plural form ušːʷ-ˈar with tense šːʷ). This word is opposed to Khanag mučʼmˈučʼ 'mouth' [Uslar 1979: 864, 1004; Dirr 1905: 197, 241]; according to Uslar' examples, mučʼmˈučʼ does not denote the anatomic 'mouth' per se, but rather 'mouth' as an organ of speech: "His mučʼmučʼ is very loquacious", "He got in trouble due to his mučʼmučʼ", "What comes from one's mučʼmˈučʼ, hits one in the forehead", etc.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ušʷ {ушв} 'mouth' [Genko 2005: 158] (erg. ušʷ-unˈu, but note the plural form ušːʷ-ˈar {ушшвар} with tense šːʷ). This basic term is opposed to Khyuryuk mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'mounth' [Genko 2005: 123], which is probably specified by Genko as a "rude word", although theoretically this stylistic gloss may concern only the corresponding Khiv form, for which see below.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ušʷ {ушв} with polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food)' [Genko 2005: 158]. This basic term is opposed to Khiv mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'mouth' [Genko 2005: 123], which is specified by Genko as a "rude word".
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ušʷ {ушв} with polysemy: 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 302]. Distinct from the literary mučʼmˈučʼ {мучIмучI} 'lip (of animal)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 235].
TAB_NOTES:
The default term for all dialects is ušʷ (ušːʷ-, užʷ-u). As for the reduplicated mučʼ-mučʼ, it seems that its original meaning was plural: 'lips (of animal)' ← mučʼ *'lip (of animal)'. In Literary Tabasaran mučʼ-mučʼ acquired the singular semantic 'lip (of animal)', whereas the plain form mučʼ was retained in the Northern Tabasaran (Khanag, Khyuryuk) expression mučʼ apʼ- 'to kiss', literally 'to make mučʼ' [Dirr 1905: 197; Genko 2005: 123]. Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) mučʼ-mučʼ as a rude term for 'mouth' fits such a scenario. The most interesting semantic development of mučʼ-mučʼ is observed in Khanag: 'mouth as an organ of speech'.
It should be noted that mučʼ cannot be postulated as the basic Proto-Tabasaran term for '(human) lip', since the Proto-Tabasaran word with this meaning originates from Proto-Lezgian *kʼʷentʼ 'lip' [NCED: 733] > Northern Tabasaran (Dyubek) kʼˈantʼ-a 'lip', Southern Tabasaran (Kondik) kʼʷantʼ 'lip' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14].
The same in Literary Lezgi: siw {сив} 'mouth' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 292; Gadzhiev 1950: 734; Haspelmath 1993: 506, 523]. This is the default term for 'human mouth' in Literary Lezgi, distinct from kʼuf {кIуф} 'mouth (of human and animal), beak, snout' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 218; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 523], whose original meaning was apparently 'mouth of animal' or rather 'beak' (cf. the Akhty data below).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut siw 'mouth' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 14]. Distinct from Khlyut kʼɨf 'beak' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13].
Proto-Lezgian:*sːɨw2
NCED: 584. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'mouth' in Archi, on the one hand, and in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian languages, on the other: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), West Lezgian (Proto-Tsakhur and probably Proto-Rutul), East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi).
In Archi, *sːɨw means 'mouth / fast (abstinence from food) / edge, end / bank, shore'; the synchronic regular paradigm of the meanings 'edge; bank' could imply that these meanings are recent Archi introductions. Similarly, this root shifted to the meaning 'edge, end' in Udi (oˤš) as well as in modern Tsakhur (siw). In modern West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), *sːɨw is also retained with the meaning 'fast (abstinence from food)' and perhaps in the expression for 'face' (< 'nose' + 'mouth').
In modern West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the basic term for 'mouth' is expressed with *ƛːal [NCED: 589], whose original meaning is unclear, because this root is not attested in the rest of Lezgian. It must be noted that such a replacement does not seem to be a Proto-West Lezgian feature, but rather represents an areal Rutul-induced introduction. The old root *sːɨw has also survived in Tsakhur and Rutul, see above.
In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the old root was superseded with *čːʷVm- [NCED: 1103], modified with the fossilized plural suffix; thus, its original meaning could indeed be something like 'lip' or even 'edge'. This root seems to have been lost in the rest of Lezgian, although it is possible that Caucasian Albanian ǯˤumo-, Udi žˤomo- 'mouth' are somehow related to Proto-Tabasaran mučʼ 'animal lip(?)' (for which see notes on 'mouth') via metathesis; the affricate correspondence is, however, irregular
In Tabasaran and Lezgi dialects, the basic word for 'mouth' tends to be superseded with certain vulgar forms with the original meaning 'animal lip' or 'beak'.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cːur 'name' [Uslar 1979: 959, 995; Dirr 1905: 216, 230]. The same in other subdialects:Khyuryuk, Kumi cːur {ццур}, Chuvek čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Genko 2005: 176, 183].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv ǯʷur ~ cur ~ čːʷur {жъур, цур, ччвур}, Chara žʷur {жвур}, Tinit zur ~ čʷur {зур, чвур}, Turag zur {зур}, Khoredzh uǯʷˈur {ужъур}, Zildik čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Genko 2005: 69, 70, 72, 151, 176, 183]. The variability of the Khiv and Tinit forms is obviously due to Genko's (or his editor M. E. Alekseev's) errors - inaccurate dialect specifications of the entries, but the real picture is undiscoverable.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: čːʷur {ччвур} 'name' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 340].
1) ozan {озан} 'neck' [Gukasyan 1974: 182; Schulze 2001: 305]; glossed as 'back of the head, back of the neck' ('Nacken') in [Fähnrich 1999: 25; Schiefner 1863: 78] and as 'back (anatomical)' (in fact, contextually 'shoulders'!) in [Dirr 1903: 19].
2) qːoqː {къокъ} 'neck' [Fähnrich 1999: 28; Dirr 1903: 16, 23; Schiefner 1863: 80; Starchevskiy 1891: 508]; glossed as 'throat' [Gukasyan 1974: 159] and 'neck, throat' in [Schulze 2001: 314].
In fact, e.g., in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902], both terms function as virtual synonyms for 'neck' and may occur in identical context (like "it would be better for him that a huge millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be sunk in the depths of the sea").
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ozan 'neck', opposed to *qːoqː 'throat'. It is also possible that there was no single term for 'neck' in Proto-Udi, and this lexical opposition should be reconstructed as *ozan 'back part of the neck' vs. *qːoqː 'front part of the neck'.
Alternatively, because Udi *ozan lacks any etymology, one can treat this as a late borrowing from an unknown source and reconstruct *qːoqː as the indigenous Udi term for 'neck; throat'. It must be noted that the Caucasian Albanian verb qʼoqʼ-esun 'to ingest, swallow, devour' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-31] points rather to the meaning 'throat' for Udi qːoqː.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290, 389; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201; Mikailov 1967: 196; Dirr 1908: 173, 226. The second element is lˈekːi 'bone' q.v.; the first one could be the "Proto-Archi" term for 'neck', cf. the substantive ˈoˤčʼi 'collar' and the locative adverb ˈoˤčʼay 'round the neck' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 290].
Kryts (proper):gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Alyk Kryts:gardan-1
Authier 2009: 155, 379. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Budukh:gǝrdǝn {гардан}-1
Meylanova 1984: 35, 251; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:gardan {гардан}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 873, 901; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 30 sub aytʼalas, 87 sub birčak].
A second candidate is the inherited term χˤow 'neck; collar' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 371], but the dialectal source of the meaning 'neck' is unknown.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: gardan [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18].
Mikik Tsakhur:gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
In [Dirr 1913: 141, 243], 'neck' is glossed as another loanword: boʁaz < Azerbaijani boɣaz 'throat'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:gardan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 201], 'neck' is glossed as another loanword: buʁaz {бугъаз} < Azerbaijani boɣaz 'throat'.
TKR_NOTES:
The term gardan was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
According to [Makhmudova 2001: 22], gardan is applied to humans, whereas the word for 'animal's neck' is utum-ɨy. The latter corresponds to Ixrek Rutul utum-ay 'nape, back of the neck (said of humans)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 257] and Borch-Khnov Rutul utum-ay 'person with hunchback' [Ibragimov 1978: 282] ← Borch-Khnov Rutul utum 'hump, kyphosis'. The origin of utum is unclear.
Suleymanov 2003: 48; Shaumyan 1941: 189. The same loanword in the Duldug subdialects: gardan 'neck' [Shaumyan 1941: 189].
AGX_NOTES:
The term gardan was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Northern Tabasaran:gardˈan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: ɣardˈan 'neck' [Uslar 1979: 654, 1010; Dirr 1905: 162, 247]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ɣardˈan {ггардан} 'neck' [Genko 2005: 40].
Southern Tabasaran:gardˈan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: gardˈan {гардан} 'neck' [Genko 2005: 36]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: gardˈan {гардан} 'neck' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 96].
TAB_NOTES:
The term gardan (ɣardan) was ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'.
Gyune Lezgi:gardˈan-1
Uslar 1896: 374, 639. Ultimately borrowed from Persian gardan 'neck'. Distinct from the inherited Gyune word χew with polysemy: 'nape, back of the neck (said of animals) / collar' [Uslar 1896: 574]. Distinct from Gyune qʼam 'nape (said of human)' [Uslar 1896: 522].
The basic Literary Lezgi term for 'neck' is the loanword gardˈan {гардан} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 82; Gadzhiev 1950: 940; Haspelmath 1993: 488, 523]. Distinct from the inherited literary word χew {хев}, which is glossed as 'neck, nape; collar' in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 343] and as 'neck; collar' in [Haspelmath 1993: 512, 523]. It is unclear whether χew can be applied to humans or only to animals, and whether its actual meaning is 'neck (in general)' or just 'back of the neck', cf. the only example in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966]: "To get callosities on the neck (said of draft animals)". Distinct from literary qʼam {кьам} 'nape (said of human)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 197].
Two synonymous words for 'neck' are quoted for the Khlyut subdialect of the Akhty dialect in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 18]: inherited qʼam and borrowed gardˈan. But for the Qurush dialect of the same Samur group the word χew with polysemy: 'neck / collar' is documented in [Ganieva 2008: 224].
The available data are too scant for a Proto-Lezgi reconstruction. The attested inherited terms are χew and qʼam; both of them demonstrate fluctuation between 'neck' and 'nape'.
Proto-Lezgian:*χˤaw4
NCED: 894. Distribution: The Proto-Lezgian term for 'neck' cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
Provisionally, we choose *χˤaw [NCED: 894]. This root means 'collar' in West Lezgian (Rutul, Tsakhur) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), although in Tsakhur and Lezgi dialects it is glossed with the additional meaning 'neck' (the default term for 'neck' is a loanword in these dialects).
Other candidates are:
1) Udi ozan 'neck', which could be a genitive formation from the Lezgian root *ʔoc:- (?) [LEDb: #201], without further etymology.
2) Archi *Hočʼ- [LEDb: #290], retained in the noun 'collar' and the adverb 'round the neck', whereas the synchronic expression for 'neck' is the compound *Hočʼ- + 'bone'. This root, however, lacks any etymology.
In Nuclear Lezgian, the default words for 'neck' represent borrowings from Persian or Azerbaijani.
The fact that loanwords are mostly used for such a basic term as 'neck' (Nuclear Lezgi, Udi) could indicate that there was no generic word for 'neck' in Proto-Lezgian as well as Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, but that there were two opposed terms: 'front part of neck' and 'back part of neck'. The situation can be the same as in the case of 'bird' q.v., where the generic term 'small/middle bird' and several names of specific large birds are reconstructible for Proto-Lezgian, whereas in modern lects the recently introduced concept 'bird (in general)' is expressed by Azerbaijani or Iranian loanwords.
If so, Archi *Hočʼ- could originally have meant 'front part of neck' in Proto-Archi with a later compound 'front part of neck + bone' for generic 'neck'; a similar opposition can be proposed for Udi (see notes on Udi 'neck'); and finally, *χˤaw should be reconstructed as 'collar' in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian (with secondary sporadic polysemy 'collar / neck' in some lects).
Gukasyan 1974: 128; Mobili 2010: 154; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Dirr 1903: 42; Schiefner 1863: 77; Starchevskiy 1891: 494. Polysemy: 'new / fresh'. Resemblance to Azerbaijani yeni 'new' is apparently accidental. As in Nidzh, 'new' can also be expressed by the Azerbaijani loanword täzä [Fähnrich 1999: 31; Schulze 2001: 324].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ini.
Caucasian Albanian: The attributive term is actually unattested. The old Lezgian root is known from the compound verb enʸi-bat-k-esun 'to be renewed' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-15], literally 'to turn new' with the verb bat-k-esun 'to turn around, return' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 276, 369; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 622; Mikailov 1967: 194; Dirr 1908: 166, 215. In [Mikailov 1967: 194] quoted as mǝcʼa-tːu-class. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 622], a corrupted variant macʼa-dːu-class is also given. Polysemy: 'new, fresh / bridegroom, bride'. Regular participle from the stative verb macʼˈa 'to be new, fresh'. In [Chumakina 2009] unjustifiedly marked as "probably borrowed", but no source is quoted.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cʼeyˈi with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Uslar 1979: 960, 999] (in [Dirr 1905: 216], glossed only as 'fresh'). The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: cʼeyˈi {цIейи} with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Genko 2005: 177].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: cʼeyˈi ~ cʼiyˈi {цIейи, цIийи} with polysemy: 'new / fresh' [Genko 2005: 177, 178]; a close synonym to the aforementioned inherited term is Khiv tazˈa {таза} 'fresh; new' [Genko 2005: 141], borrowed from Azerbaijani täzä 'new; fresh'.
The same in Literary Tabasaran: inherited cʼiyˈi {цIийи} 'new' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 333] and borrowed tazˈa {таза} 'fresh; new' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 275].
The same in Literary Lezgi: cʼiyˈi {цIийи} 'new' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 362; Gadzhiev 1950: 426; Haspelmath 1993: 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut cʼiyˈi 'new' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
Proto-Lezgian:*cʼen-class-ä-1
NCED: 357. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian stems, retained with the basic meaning in almost all of the lects. In Nidzh Udi, Alyk Kryts, Budukh, superseded with the Azerbaijani loanword.
Replacements: {'new' > 'fresh'} (Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular. We follow [NCED] and explain the Udi and Nuclear Lezgian forms as *cʼen-y-ä- (with fossilized -y-), whereas the Archi form goes back to *cʼen-w-ä- (with further metathesis).
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be new'.
Gukasyan 1974: 249; Mobili 2010: 258; Fähnrich 1999: 30; Dirr 1903: 14, 95, 96; Schiefner 1863: 91; Schulze 2001: 321; Starchevskiy 1891: 504. In [Fähnrich 1999: 30] the corrupted variant šˤu is also quoted. Distinct from adverbial išo-un 'at night' [Schulze 2001: 287; Schiefner 1863: 77; Dirr 1903: 81] (in [Fähnrich 1999: 18] a corrupted form išˤo-un); note that in [Gukasyan 1974: 130, 216; Mobili 2010: 156] išo {ишо} is incorrectly glossed simply as 'night'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *šu ~ *šü 'night', *išo 'at night' (both words are etymologically related). In the light of Lezgian etymology, resemblance to Judeo-Tat šäv 'night', Persian šab 'night' is accidental.
Caucasian Albanian: šu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-33].
In [Dirr 1912: 162], the word naχˤ is also glossed as 'evening, night', but apparently the exact meaning of naχˤ is just 'evening', thus in [Ibragimov 1978: 19, 27, 118, 122].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two parallel absolutive forms are quoted: wɨš and huš. The rest of the paradigm is suppletive: wɨš-i-r [erg.] / huš-bɨr [abs. pl.] / wɨš-i-mɨ-r [erg. pl.]. It seems that huš- represents a borrowing from the neighboring Borch-Khnov dialect.
RUT_NOTES:
In the Borch-Khnov dialect 'night' has the phonetic shape huš [Makhmudova 2001: 11].
All attested phonetic shapes - wɨš, yüš, huš - reflect the same proto-form.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211; Genko 2005: 79. In [Genko 2005], erroneously quoted as yižʷ-ˈi.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yišːʷ 'night' [Uslar 1979: 756, 999; Dirr 1905: 180, 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yišːʷ {йишшв} 'night' [Genko 2005: 81].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yišʷ {йишв} 'night' [Genko 2005: 81]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yišʷ {йишв} 'night' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 186].
TAB_NOTES:
Note the retention of tense fricative šːʷ in the Northern subdialects.
Regular paradigm in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yif 'night' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 211].
For the phonetics cf. Nyutyug (subdialect of the Yarki dialect < Kyuri group) yüx [abs.] / üxü- ~ xü- [obl.] 'night' [Meylanova 1964: 75, 109], Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect < Samur group) iwi- [obl.] 'night' [Meylanova 1964: 247].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʡišːʷ1
NCED: 524. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained with the basic meaning in all the languages except for Tsakhur.
In Tsakhur, superseded with *χːˤamː /*χːˤanː [LEDb: #211], whose original meaning is likely to have been 'evening' (cf. 'evening' in Aghul & Tabasaran, and 'dimming of eye-sight' in Archi).
Replacements: {'evening' > 'night'} (Tsakhur).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for assimilative delabialization and voicing in Budukh. In some lects, the metathesized variant *šːʷi(ʡ) is attested within the paradigm (Udi šu ~ šü, Archi adverb šːʷi 'at night', perhaps Lezgi oblique f- ~ xü-).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *ʡišːʷa-.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 281, 370; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 195; Mikailov 1967: 194; Dirr 1908: 169, 215. Polysemy: 'nose / beak / toe of footwear / mountain peak, crest' (the latter meaning is opposed to others in some forms within the paradigm). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 195], the variant mup {муп} is also quoted; this is an erroneous transmission of Cyrillic cursive handwriting.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13. In [Dirr 1913], 'nose' is quoted as qow. The relationship between quš and qow is unclear; for safety, we prefer to treat them as synonyms.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qˤaq 'nose' [Uslar 1979: 806, 999; Dirr 1905: 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qˤaq {хъяхъ} 'nose' [Genko 2005: 174].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv qʷˤaqʷ {хъюаьхъв}, Tinit qˤaq {хъяхъ} 'nose' [Genko 2005: 174]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qˤuq {хъюхъ} 'nose' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 329].
TAB_NOTES:
Note various dialectal assimilative/dissimilative processes in the sequence *qʷ-qʷ.
The same in Literary Lezgi: ner {нер} 'nose' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 252; Gadzhiev 1950: 427; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 523].
In the Akhty dialect: Khlyut ilˈer 'nose' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 13], Khuryug ler ~ iler 'nose' [Meylanova 1964: 287]. It must be noted that for the Khuryug subdialect of Akhty, the form tʼiškʼapʼilar 'nose' is also quoted in [Meylanova 1964: 314] - an unclear compound, whose first element is tʼiš = literary tʼiš 'muzzle, snout'.
As proposed in [NCED: 826], both Gyune ner and Akhty (i)ler are related, representing the plural formation *il-er with the fossilized exponent -Vr. The shift l > n in Gyune n-er is irregular, although there are a few parallel cases of such a development.
Proto-Lezgian:*muʔel3
NCED: 825. Distribution: The word is fairly unstable in Lezgian. Three stems are equivalent candidates from the distributive point of view.
1) *muʔel [NCED: 825]. This stem means 'nose' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and in Lezgi. Formally, this is at least the Proto-Nuclear root for 'nose'. It shifted to 'beak' in Aghul, whereas in one of the outliers - Archi - it denotes 'snot'. We choose *muʔel as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'nose' because of its North Caucasian cognates with the same semantics.
2) *mu(l)čː [NCED: 816]. This root is retained only in Archi with polysemy: 'nose / beak / toe of footwear / mountain peak, crest'. External North Caucasian comparison points to the meaning 'edge, tip'. The Proto-Archi development could be either 'edge, tip' > 'nose' > other attested meanings or 'peak' > 'nose'.
3) In Udi, a compound is used in the meaning 'nose'; it could be analyzed as *wV(r)χ-mVʁ (~ pː-) 'sheep's tail' (thus [NCED: 1045]).
Some local replacements of *muʔel took place in individual Nuclear Lezgian lects.
In Aghul and Tabasaran, 'nose' is expressed by *qʷˤaqʷ(a) [NCED: 894]; this stem means 'cheek' in Lezgi, but was lost in the rest of languages; the exact Proto-Lezgian meaning of *qʷˤaqʷ(a) is unclear. It must be noted that in many Dargi languages, 'nose' is expressed by forms that are not only etymologically cognate with Lezgian *qʷˤaqʷ(a), but also fairly close phonetically to the Aghul-Tabasaran forms; thus, the meaning 'nose' could be an areal Dargwa-Aghul-Tabasaran isogloss, if not an early interdialectal borrowing (note that *qːʷˤanqː is apparently not the Proto-Dargi term for 'nose').
In Rutul, 'nose' is expressed with *ɬerɬ [NCED: 1061]; its Lezgian cognates as well as external North Caucasian comparison point out that the original Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ɬerɬ was 'snot' or 'saliva'.
In Tsakhur dialects, the etymologically obscure forms qow and quš 'nose' also occur.
Maisak 2008a: 133; Gukasyan 1974: 288; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 483. A verbal proclitic. Cf. the prohibitive proclitic ma- {ма-} [Maisak 2008a: 134] and the proclitic nu- {ну-} used with infinite forms [Maisak 2008a: 135].
Gukasyan 1974: 288; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 483; Dirr 1903: 75; Schiefner 1863: 29; Schulze 2001: 240. A verbal proclitic. Cf. the prohibitive proclitic ma- {ма-} and the negative proclitic for the future and optative nu, nut {ну, нут}.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *te-, a verbal proclitic.
Caucasian Albanian: nu- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-55]. A verbal proclitic, normally used with non-past finite forms. Distinct from the morpheme te (particle or proclitic), which is normally used as a negative copula or with verbs in the past tense [Gippert et al. 2008: II-55]. Distinct from the prohibitive proclitic ma- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-51]. A fourth, more marginal, negative morpheme is nu-t (apparently < nu + te) [Gippert et al. 2008: II-52].
Saadiev 1994: 425-427. Negation of assertion is expressed by the copula d-ä-class or by the simple prefix d-. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix m- [Saadiev 1994: 429].
Authier 2009: 149 ff. Negation of assertion is expressed by the copula d-a-class or by the simple prefix d-. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix m- [Authier 2009: 152].
Alekseev 1994: 280; Talibov 2007: 184, 229; Meylanova 1984: 197. Negation of assertion is expressed by the encliticized copula d-ǝ-class in finite forms and the prefix d-V- in infinite forms. The prohibitive exponent is the prefix mV- [Alekseev 1994: 279; Talibov 2007: 216].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 81-84; Ibragimov 1990: 131, 136; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 523. Negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix dʸ- ~ idʸ- or by the encliticized copula dʸe-š. The latter (analytic) patter is more frequent [Kibrik et al. 1999: 81]. The prohibitive marker is the prefix m- ~ im- [Kibrik et al. 1999: 84].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix dʸe- or by the encliticized copula dʸe-š; the prohibitive marker is the prefix mV- [Schulze 1997: 65].
Ibragimov 1990: 197. According to [Ibragimov 1990], negation of assertion can be expressed by the prefix dʸ- ~ idʸ- or by the copula dʸi-ʔ, whereas the prohibitive marker is the prefix m- ~ im-.
Dirr 1912: 91 ff.; Alekseev 1994a: 233 ff.; Makhmudova 2001: 146 ff. According to the aforementioned sources, negation of assertion is expressed by the encliticized copula -di-š in finite forms, whereas in non-finite forms (e.g., in adverbial participles) negation of assertion is expressed by the prefix ǯV-. In [Ibragimov 1978: 103], the Mukhad system is described in a similar way.
The prohibitive exponent is the prefix mV- [Alekseev 1994a: 234; Ibragimov 1978: 103; Makhmudova 2001: 146; Dirr 1912: 91].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 439. In [Ibragimov 1978: 214 ff.], no specific Ixrek peculiarities are described, that is, the Ixrek system of negations is identical to the Mukhad one: -di-š in finite forms, ǯV- in non-finite forms, mV- in the prohibitive. As noted in [Ibragimov 1978: 197], the prefixal morpheme ǯV- has two variants: ǯV- in the initial position, -čV- in the intervocalic position.
The system of Aghul negations is described in [Magometov 1970: 148 ff.; Suleymanov 1993: 141 f., 154; Tarlanov 1994: 237 f.; Shaumyan 1941: 109 ff.] with examples from various dialects. The verbal negation of assertion is expressed with the encliticized copula -da-wa / -da-ʔ/ -da or with the verbal prefix dV-. The verbal prefix mV- is the prohibitive exponent. All the aforementioned authors note no principal discrepancies between Aghul dialects.
Magometov 1965: 293. Verbal affix. After a vowel-final morpheme, the rhotacized variant -rVː- (< -da-) occurs [Magometov 1965: 295].
The same affix in the Khanag subdialect: da-r or simplified da, in the intervocalic position -rV- [Magometov 1965: 291, 295; Dirr 1905: 105 ff.]. The same affix in the Khyuryuk subdialect: da-r [Magometov 1965: 293 f.].
Magometov 1965: 292, 306. Verbal affix. This is actually a morpheme from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik form is unknown.
The same basic morpheme in Literary Tabasaran: dar [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 444; Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 69 ff.; Zhirkov 1948: 134 ff.].
TAB_NOTES:
The system of Tabasaran negations is described in [Magometov 1965: 290 ff.] with examples from various dialects. The verbal negation of assertion is expressed with the affix dar, harmonized dur / der / etc.(in Northern Tabasaran it mutates into rar or yar in some positions; final -r can get lost in some forms). Tabasaran dar is used as either a prefix or a suffix, depending on the grammatical form. This morpheme originally represents the cliticized negative copula da-r with the fossilized class exponent -r. In some participle forms the negative exponent is simply -di (with the dialectal variants -ǯi, -ir, -i) without the class suffix [Magometov 1965: 305].
In Southern Tabasaran, verbal stems, modified with certain prefixes, create the negated forms via reduplication of the prefix; this is a secondary analogical pattern [Magometov 1965: 301 f.].
The verbal affix (prefix or suffix) mV is the Common Tabasaran prohibitive exponent [Magometov 1965: 310 ff.].
Uslar 1896: 161. According to Uslar's sparse data, the Gyune system is very similar to the modern literary one: suffixal -č (or -či-r with the additional participle suffix -r) in finite forms, and prefixal tː(V)-, t(V)-, d(V)- in non-finite forms, see below for details. The distribution between tː- ~ t- ~ d- seems non-existent, with some verbs possessing parallel forms with two of the listed variants; the general system was apparently described during a period of restructuring (see [Uslar 1896: 177-178, 208-210] for the lists of examples). Nevertheless, some patterns can be observed, e.g., verbs with the root ejective consonant normally attach dV-.
In Literary Lezgi, the basic verbal negation is the suffix -č {ч} (or -či-r), which is used in finite indicative forms; the second negative exponent is the prefix tː(V)- {т}, restricted to participle, masdar and infinitive forms; see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 206 ff.; Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 53; Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 582 ff.; Haspelmath 1993: 5, 133, 135]. According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., a couple of verbs with the ejective root consonant attach the negative prefix d(V)- {д} in the literary language instead of common tː(V)- {т}, but actually, in natural speech the negative forms of these verbs are normally pronounced with tː(V)-. It should also be noted that the majority of verbs in Literary Lezgi possess analytic negated forms, derived with the help of cliticized negated auxiliary verbs.
All the dental prefixal exponents, listed above, apparently originate from the main Lezgian negation *tːV-. One can suppose that initially the Gyune variants tː(V)-, t(V)-, d(V)- were distributed according to the root consonant. As a parallel, cf. the Jaba dialect (Samur group), where two prefixes for non-finite forms coexist: tː(V)- and tʼ(V)-; according to examples in [Ganieva 2007: 131], tʼ(V)- is attached to the verbs with an ejective root consonant (e.g., acʼũ 'to fill' - tʼ=acʼũ 'not to fill'), whereas tː(V)- is used elsewhere (e.g., awũ 'to do' - tː=awũ 'not to do'). The consonantal harmony is thus similar to the nominal oblique stem suffix -cʼi- / -čːi- / -čʼi- / -ži-, where the allomorphs are determined by the root consonant in Literary Lezgi [Haspelmath 1993: 63].
In Literary Lezgi, prohibitive is formed with the suffix -mi plus the participle suffix -r [Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 53; Haspelmath 1993: 5, 23].
Proto-Lezgian:*tːV-1
NCED: 404. Distribution: The proclitic *tːV- is retained as the default exponent of negation of assertion in finite verbal forms in Udi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian languages (except for Lezgi), on the other. In Nuclear Lezgian *tːV- is normally attached to the copula, constituting a negative particle.
In Caucasian Albanian, *tːV- is restricted to past (perfective) forms, whereas present (imperfective) forms are negated with the help of the proclitic nu- of unclear origin (theoretically possessing some scant cognates in Tsezian).
In Archi, negation of assertion is expressed with the suffixal morpheme =tʼu, which does not regularly correspond to *tːV- from the phonetic point of view. Theoretically, this could be an inner Archi innovation of unknown origin, but it is more likely that Archi =tʼu originates from *tːV- with the change of the morphosyntactical status and irregular glottalization (the expected Archi reflex should be **dV- or **=tːV). Cf. also the possible explanation proposed in [NCED: 404].
In Lezgi, *tːV- is restricted to non-finite forms, whereas the main finite negative exponent is the suffix *čːV [NCED: 1101]. The latter possesses some Lezgian cognates: in Rutul the prefix *čːV expresses negation of assertion in non-finite forms; in Archi, the suffixal chain -ču-gu expresses the dubitative mood ('the speaker wishes to know whether the fact is true') [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 91].
The Proto-Lezgian prohibitive exponent can be safely reconstructed as the proclitic *mV- [NCED: 797]: this morpheme is retained in both Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Nuclear Lezgian. In Archi, however, prohibitive is expressed with the suffix -di-gi or simple -gi. The origin of Archi -gi is not entirely clear, whereas -di could be somehow related to the main negative morpheme *tːV-.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the Archi morpheme.
Semantics and structure: Primary auxiliary morpheme.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: sa-class 'one' [Uslar 1979: 151; Dirr 1905: 42]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: sa-class {сав} 'one' [Genko 2005: 136].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: sa-class {саб} 'one' [Genko 2005: 135]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: sa-class {саб} 'one' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 265; Zhirkov 1948: 91; Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 52 f.].
TAB_NOTES:
See [Magometov 1965: 159 ff.] for the dialectal overview. Note the Northern archaic form sːa-class 'one' with the tense fricative, quoted in [Magometov 1965: 160, 165] without subdialectal specification.
Uslar 1896: 86. In the non-attributive function, the variant sa-d is used.
The same in Literary Lezgi: sa {са} 'one' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 566; Haspelmath 1993: 230] (in the non-attributive function, the variant sa-d {сад} is used).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut sa-d 'one' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 247].
Final -d is the old class exponent.
Proto-Lezgian:*sːa1
NCED: 323. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian words, retained with its original meaning in all the lects.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the metathesis *sːa > *ʔasː within the Archi paradigm.
Gukasyan 1974: 36; Mobili 2010: 19; Fähnrich 1999: 6; Dirr 1903: 12, 14, 16, 18, 26, 50, 93, 96; Schiefner 1863: 75; Schulze 2001: 246; Starchevskiy 1891: 508. In [Starchevskiy 1891] the variant amd-ar is also quoted (cf. the Nidzh form above).
UDI_NOTES:
An Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" for 'person, human being'. Forms in both dialects contain the fossilized plural suffix -ar. Note the vowel reduction and the subsequent metathesis dm > md in the Nidzh form.
Caucasian Albanian: išu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21, 48]. Suppletive paradigm with the following polysemy: išu 'man; person' (sg) / žin 'men; people' (pl.), see [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-17, 21, 48].
The meaning 'person' can also be expressed as ʁu-šuy-ʁar, literally 'living-man's son' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37] ← ʁuy 'living, alive' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37], išu-y 'man; person'-gen [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-21], ʁar 'son' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37].
Distinct from qʼar 'tribe; clan, kin; nation, people; seed (botanic)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30].
Archi:adˈam-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 186, 388; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70; Mikailov 1967: 171; Dirr 1908: 125, 226. A close synonym of adˈam is the word insˈan 'person; somebody' (with the latter meaning used only in negative constructions as 'nobody') [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 247, 388; Mikailov 1967: 182; Dirr 1908: 153, 226]. Both words represent Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" terms for 'person, human being'.
Kryts (proper):admi-1
Saadiev 1994: 414, 416, 434; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. An Oriental (originally Arabic) "Wanderwort" for 'person, human being'.
Alyk Kryts:adami-1
Authier 2009: 54, 70, 94, etc. See notes on Kryts proper.
Budukh:idmi {идми}-1
Meylanova 1984: 64, 250; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. A second term for 'person' is insan {инсан} [Meylanova 1984: 65, 250; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70]. Both words represent wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) terms for 'person, human being'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:insan ~ iːsan {инсан}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 878, 879, 901; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 192 sub kinnana].
Mikik Tsakhur:insan-1
Dirr 1913: 168, 242.
Gelmets Tsakhur:insan-1
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 70.
TKR_NOTES:
The term represents the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) word for 'person, human being'.
In the Kurag subdialect: insan 'person' [Magometov 1970: 211 sentences 23, 29], idemi 'person' [Magometov 1970: 208 sentence 7].
AGX_NOTES:
Both of the attested terms (insan, idemi) represent the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) words for 'person, human being'.
Northern Tabasaran:ermˈi {эрми}-1
Genko 2005: 196. Not documented in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990].
For the Khanag subdialect three loanwords are known: armˈi 'person' [Uslar 1979: 588, 1009; Dirr 1905: 154, 246], insˈan 'person' [Uslar 1979: 734, 1009; Dirr 1905: 176, 246], kas 'man; person' [Uslar 1979: 779, 1009; Dirr 1905: 183, 246].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: armˈi {арми} 'person' [Genko 2005: 19], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Genko 2005: 76], kas {кас} 'person' [Genko 2005: 83].
Southern Tabasaran:edmˈi {эдми}-1
Genko 2005: 194. This form is actually from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'person' is unknown.
In sum, three loanwords are quoted for the Khiv subdialect: edmˈi {эдми} 'person' [Genko 2005: 194], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Genko 2005: 76], kas {кас} 'person' [Genko 2005: 83] (this form is not marked by Genko as Khiv due to accidental omission of the plus sign).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: admˈi {адми} 'person; man (q.v.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 50], insˈan {инсан} 'person' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 178], kas {кас} 'person' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 190].
TAB_NOTES:
Totally superseded with various loanwords. Two of them, admi (~ edmi ~ armi ~ ermi) and insan, represent the wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) words for 'person, human being'; for the dialectal rhotacism d > r see [Magometov 1965: 61]. The third term, kas, was borrowed from Persian kas 'person'.
Gyune Lezgi:insˈan-1
Uslar 1896: 439, 638. A wandering Oriental (originally Arabic) term for 'person, human being'. The second Gyune word for 'person' is kas [Uslar 1896: 459, 638], borrowed from Persian kas 'person'.
The same loanwords for 'person' in Literary Lezgi: insˈan {инсан} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 139; Gadzhiev 1950: 927; Haspelmath 1993: 492, 524], kas {кас} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 152; Gadzhiev 1950: 927; Haspelmath 1993: 494].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːʷiy1
NCED: 336. Distribution: Hardly reconstructible, because inherited forms were completely superseded with wandering terms of Arabic or Persian origin in all the lects except for Caucasian Albanian. In Caucasian Albanian, the meaning 'person' is expressed with the same word as 'man' (< Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy 'man' q.v.) or with the "poetic" expression 'living-man's son'. We follow formal evidence and reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *šːʷiy with polysemy 'man / person'. Further see notes on 'man'.
On the other hand, the overwhelming amount of cases with borrowed terms for 'person' could point to the fact that Proto-Lezgian lacked a separate lexical item with this meaning. See similar situations with 'bird' and 'neck'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 874, 893; Ibragimov 1990: 101, 206. In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 115], the Literary Tsakhur term is quoted as gʸ=oʁu-y {гёгъуй} with polysemy: 'atmospheric precipitation / appearance (e.g., Christ's appearance)' (the same form in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 61]).
The second, apparently less frequent term is uʁa-l {угъал} [Ibragimov 1990: 30; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 348], which contains the same root.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 61], quoted as gʸ=oʁu-y (an error?).
The second, apparently less frequent term is uʁa-l {угъал} [Ibragimov 1990: 185, 187], which contains the same root.
TKR_NOTES:
The term for 'rain' normally represents the synchronic masdar in -y from the verb gʸ=oʁ- 'to rain, snow' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 874; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 115]. Initial gʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41]. The more archaic formation is uʁa-l (Mishlesh, Gelmets), derived from the same root with the old l-suffix; this form must be reconstructed for Proto-Tsakhur.
An old derivative from the verbal root 'to rain', retained in Rutul as class=uʁ- (see notes on Mukhad). Initial h=/y=/0= are the class 1/4 exponents; final -l is the Proto-Lezgian suffix.
Marginal Ixrek maf 'rain' is an innovation, perhaps under the influence of some other Lezgian languages.
An old derivative from the verbal root 'to rain', retained in some Aghul dialects as uʁʷ-a- or uʁ-a- (with the dialectal dissimilation uCʷ > uC, on which see [Magometov 1970: 26]). Final -l is the Proto-Lezgian suffix.
Marginal Fite marf 'rain' is an innovation under the influence on the part of the Tabasaran language.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203. Distinct from the more specific Dyubek term cʼaw-ˈul 'drizzle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203] < *cʼay-ul < *cʼad-ul.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: marx 'rain' [Uslar 1979: 847, 993; Dirr 1905: 194, 227]. Distinct from Khanag cʼalː or cʼalː-ˈur 'drizzle' [Dirr 1905: 216], glossed as 'dew' in [Uslar 1979: 959]. Khanag cʼalː- < *cʼad-l-, cf. in Northern Tabasaran: Kumi cʼar-ˈul 'dew; a drop' < *cʼad-ul [Genko 2005: 177], in Southern Tabasaran: Tinit cʼad-ˈal, Khiv cʼud-ˈal 'a drop' [Genko 2005: 176, 178].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: marx {мархь} 'rain' [Genko 2005: 117]. Distinct from Khyuryuk cʼalː-ˈur {цIаллур} 'dew' [Genko 2005: 177], for which see above.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: marf {марф} 'rain' [Genko 2005: 117]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: čig {чиг} 'drizzle' [Genko 2005: 181], χmul {хмул} 'autumn rain' [Genko 2005: 165].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: marx {мархь} 'rain' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 224].
TAB_NOTES:
Cf. the old verb for 'to rain', which is retained as Northern (Khanag) wuqː-ˈ {вубкъув} 'to rain, snow' [Genko 2005: 33], Southern (Khiv) uʁ-ˈ {угъуб} 'to rain' [Genko 2005: 151].
The same in Literary Lezgi: marf {марф} 'rain' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 231; Gadzhiev 1950: 178; Haspelmath 1993: 498, 525]. This is the basic term for 'rain' in the literary language. A second, more rare word with the meaning 'rain' is qːʷa-l {къвал} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 184; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 401] (not found in other sources). Cf. the verb qːʷa- {къун} 'to rain, snow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193; Gadzhiev 1950: 253; Haspelmath 1993: 502].
In the other dialects of the Kyuri group: Qurah (Kyuri group) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 169].
In the Samur group: Khlyut (subdialect of Akhty) yuqːˈa-l 'rain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 203], Khuryug (subdialect of Akhty) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 302, 315], Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara) qːʷa-l 'rain' [Meylanova 1964: 262], Jaba qːo-l 'rain' [Ganieva 2007: 122, 133], Qurush qːʷa-l 'rain' [Ganieva 2008: 67, 144].
But in the Quba group: Yargun marf 'rain'[Babaliyeva 2007: 60, 68, 79, 91].
The common form qːʷa-l and Khlyut yuqːa-l are derived from the verb for 'to rain' (see above) with the rare and archaic suffix -l. External comparison suggests that this deverbative noun must be posited as the Proto-Lezgi word for 'rain', whereas Gyune/Quba marf in the generic meaning 'rain' represents an innovation of areal origin. The Khlyutform yuqːa-l is, however, morphologically suspicious; maybe it represents a borrowing from the neighboring Mukhad dialect of Rutul, cf. Mukhad h=uʁa-l ~ uʁa-l ~ y=uʁa-l 'rain' q.v. (if the Rutul shift qː > ʁ is a late process).
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔoqːʷa-l1
NCED: 1010. Distribution: Attested as the basic term for 'rain' in Udi, on the one hand, and in many Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and the most East Lezgian lects (Aghul, Lezgi).
This is a Proto-Lezgian derivative from the verb *ʔoqːʷa- 'to rain' with the suffix *-l, which forms deverbative abstract nouns [Alekseev 1985: 108 f.]. The verb *ʔoqːʷa- 'to rain' was retained in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). It should be noted that in modern Tsakhur dialects, it is the synchronic masdar from this verb that is mostly used for 'rain', whereas *ʔoqːʷa-l is obsolete.
A second candidate is *marɬʷ [NCED: 795], which is the basic term for 'rain' in Tabasaran, Fite Aghul, Ixrek Rutul, Gyune Lezgi (a Tabasaran-induced areal innovation), on the one hand, and in Budukh, on the other (apparently an independent introduction). The original meaning of *marɬʷ is unclear; outside of the aforementioned Nuclear Lezgian lects, it is attested in Archi as 'foam', whereas external comparison points to the meaning 'a k. of cloud'.
In Archi, the deverbative formation for 'rain' was replaced with *χːˤäl [LEDb: #307], whose Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'sky': this stem means 'sky' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and in Proto-Archi, as suggested by the Archi locative adverb χːˤolˈo 'in the sky, up in the air' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 340], which reflects (with Ablaut) the archaic oblique stem of χːˤel (χːˤel in the secondary meaning 'rain' possesses a regular paradigm).
In Kryts, 'rain' is expressed by the synchronically substantivized adjective 'wet' (*čʼäˤpː [NCED: 385]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. In [Gukasyan 1974: 241] and [Mobili 2010: 91], quoted without pharyngealization: čːočːa {чIочIа} (apparently an error on Gukasyan's part, repeated by Mobili). According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., the correct variant is čːˤočːˤa.
Gukasyan 1974: 241; Fähnrich 1999: 14; Schiefner 1863: 90; Schulze 2001: 267. In [Fähnrich 1999], correctly quoted with pharyngealization: čːˤočːˤa. In [Gukasyan 1974: 241], apparently quoted erroneously as čːočːa {чIочIа} (see notes on Nidzh Udi). The exact phonetic nature of affricates can hardly be established from old records of Schiefner and the Bežanovs (note that Bežanovs' {ч̆оч̆а} (Mt. 16.2) is incorrectly transcribed as čˤočˤa in [Schulze 2001: 267]).
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *čːˤočːˤa.
Caucasian Albanian: A good candidate is čʼočʼa [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-29], which renders the word 'purple' in Jo. 19.5, but it should be noted that the passage is damaged and the reading is not reliable.
Archi:yˈaˤtʼan-nu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 255, 364; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674; Mikailov 1967: 184; Dirr 1908: 156, 211. Quoted as yaˤtʼǝn-nu-class in [Mikailov 1967]. A regular participle from the stative verb yˈaˤtʼan 'to be red', borrowed from Lak yaˤtʼ-ul- 'red' (as proposed in [NCED: 541], probably from some Lak dialect that possessed not the -ul-, but the -an-suffix); in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed" without the source.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234. An adjective in -i. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674], quoted as ürü-ǯ - a reformed stem in -u with further vowel harmony i-u > ü-ü; -ǯ is a class exponent. The term irä-ǯ 'blood' q.v. is derived from this adjective.
Both in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674], the loanword qːɨrmɨzɨ is also quoted as a synonym (< Azerbaijani gɨrmɨzɨ 'red').
Authier 2009: 67, 112, 265. A reformed stem in -u, see notes on Kryts proper (Alyk iu normally corresponds to ü of other dialects).
Budukh:al {ал}-1
Meylanova 1984: 18, 218; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. Borrowed from Azerbaijani al 'red, vermilion, purple'.
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234], 'red' is glossed as qːɨrmɨzɨ, which is translated as 'dark red' in [Meylanova 1984: 93] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨrmɨzɨ 'red').
Kibrik et al. 1999: 871, 894; Ibragimov 1990: 83, 88; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 403; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 674. It must be noted that čʼara-n comes from [Kibrik et al. 1999], whereas in [Ibragimov 1990; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the word is consistently transcribed with pharyngealization: čʼˤara-n {чIаIран}. According to Kodzasov's report [Kibrik et al. 1999: 19], čʼara-n is one of the instances of the so-called epiglottalization (emphatic palatalization) - a specific prosodic feature of Mishlesh Tsakhur, not studied in detail yet and therefore not noted in Kibrik et al.'s transcription. Epiglottalized čʼara-n is incorrectly treated as a pharyngealized form by Ibragimov and other authors.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: erˈi 'red' [Uslar 1979: 684, 996; Dirr 1905: 168, 232]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: erˈi {эри} 'red' [Genko 2005: 196]; distinct from Khyuryuk elwˈen 'light red' [Genko 2005: 194]. The latter term was borrowed from Azerbaijani älwan 'many-colored, gaily colored' or from Persian alwaːn 'of various colors' (ultimately of Arabic origin).
The same in the Tinit subdialect: irˈi {ири} 'red' [Genko 2005: 77]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ürˈu {уьру} 'red' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 305].
Somewhat differently in the Khiv subdialects, where, according to Genko's glosses, ürˈu {уьру} means specifically 'dark red, brown-red' [Genko 2005: 159], as opposed to elwˈen 'light red' [Genko 2005: 194] (the latter term is a loanword, see notes on Northern Tabasaran).
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarˈu {яру} 'red' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 405; Gadzhiev 1950: 315; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut erˈi 'red' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔirɨ- ~ *ʔˤirɨ-2
NCED: 519. Distribution: This stem is attested with its basic meaning in the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian lects (Kryts, Rutul, Aghul, Rutul, Lezgi), although it has been lost without a trace in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi). In Budukh, it was superseded with Azerbaijani loanwords in the meaning 'red', but retained in the substantivized expression for 'blood' q.v. In Tsakhur, the etymologically obscure word čʼara- (*čʼärä-?) 'red' occurs.
In Udi, the word for 'red' is čːˤočːˤa. An etymologically isolated (in Lezgian) adjective, whose Lezgian protoform could be *čːVčːV- [NCED: 348]. The Udi stem is incorrectly derived from the reduplicated *čːar-čːar- (with further connection to the Tsakhur term) in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-72].
Since in Archi, '(to be) red' is expressed with the Lak loanword, Nuclear Lezgian *ʔirɨ- and Udi *čːVčːV- appear to be equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'red' from the distributive point of view. External North Caucasian comparison, however, speaks in favor of *ʔirɨ- [NCED: 519]. It should be noted that, as proposed in [NCED: 348], *čːVčːV- could possess some scant Andian comparanda that also mean 'red'.
Replacements: {'red' > 'blood'} (Kryts, Budukh).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for some assimilative-dissimilative vowel fluctuations in Tabasaran and Lezgi.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be red'.
Caucasian Albanian: lʸaqʼ 'road, way, path; journey' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-24]; an etymological cognate of the Udi term with a different treatment of initial Lezgian *r-.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 189; Shaumyan 1941: 159; Magometov 1970: 205 sentences 10, 17, 19. The latter form is from [Magometov 1970]. In [Shaumyan 1941], incorrectly quoted as räq.
It is interesting that in [Magometov 1970: 205 sentence 15] this word is quoted as räqːˤ in the collocation mašini-n räqːˤ 'highway' - apparently a cultural borrowing from another Aghul dialect. Likewise in [Suleymanov 2003: 142], 'road' is quoted with pharyngealization: raqːˤ {ракъʿ}.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: raqːˤ 'road' [Uslar 1979: 894, 993; Dirr 1905: 202, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road' [Genko 2005: 135].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road' [Genko 2005: 135]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: riχ {рих} 'path, narrow road; fence, railings' [Genko 2005: 133] and ülčˈi {уьлчи} 'big road' [Genko 2005: 159] (the latter is of Turkic origin).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: raqːˤ {рякъ} 'road (in general); path, narrow road' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 264]; distinct from the more specific term riχ {рих} 'path, narrow road; fence, railings' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 261].
The same in Literary Lezgi: req [abs.] / reqʼ-ˈi- [obl.] {рехъ} 'road' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 277; Gadzhiev 1950: 183; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut räq [abs.] / räqː-ˈi- [obl.] 'road' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 189].
Proto-Lezgian:*räqʼːˤ1
NCED: 603. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning in all the lects (including Caucasian Albanian), except for South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh).
In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), this was superseded with the phonetically similar root *riχ [NCED: 606]. The exact original meaning of *riχ is unclear, because outside South Lezgian, its seems attested only in Tabasaran with the specific meaning 'path, narrow road; fence, railings'.
Gukasyan 1974: 206; Fähnrich 1999: 31; Schiefner 1863: 95; Schulze 2001: 325; Starchevskiy 1891: 501. Polysemy: 'root / lineage, kin, clan / bottom'. In [Schulze 2001], tum is glossed as 'root; seed; gender', although in the texts from [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] this word means only 'root (the underground part of tree/plant)', but not 'seed' q.v. and not, a fortiori, 'gender'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *tum. Originally borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms, but the semantic derivation 'seed' > 'root' seems to be inner Udi, therefore we treat tum 'root' as a full-fledged item (further see notes on Proto-Lezgian 'seed').
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:mˈarχːu-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 277, 363; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 401; Mikailov 1967: 192; Dirr 1908: 166, 211. Borrowed from Lak marχːa ~ marχːʷa 'root' (in [Chumakina 2009] labeled only as "perhaps borrowed" without the source).
A second term for 'root' is kuk {кук} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 147, 349] ~ kük {куьк} [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 401], borrowed from Azerbaijani kök 'root'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97; Suleymanov 2003: 131; Shaumyan 1941: 151. In [Suleymanov 2003], quoted with -a-.
AGX_NOTES:
The Keren (Richa) form marqʷˤ is irregular (one could expect something like **marqʼʷˤ with the ejective uvular or even **marʡ ~ **marʢ). It is proposed in [NCED: 827] to treat Richa marqʷˤ as the result of contamination with another, poorly attested Proto-Lezgian root (*marqʷ), but we prefer to regard Richa marqʷˤ as a sporadic phonetic deviation.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ǯiw 'root' [Uslar 1979: 693, 996; Dirr 1905: 169, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ǯiw {жжив} 'root' [Genko 2005: 67].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: čːiw {ччив} 'root' [Genko 2005: 182]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: čːiw {ччив} 'root' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 340].
Uslar 1896: 408, 615. Distinct from pːun {пун} with polysemy: 'root / lower part, base / fortune, property' [Uslar 1896: 521], which is ultimately borrowed from Persian bun 'root (botanic); basis, foundation'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: duwˈul {дувул} 'root' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 114; Gadzhiev 1950: 309; Haspelmath 1993: 486, 525]. This is the default literary term for 'root'. Distinct from the Iranian loanword pːun {пун} with polysemy: 'root / stump, stub / lower part, base / fortune, property' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 268; Gadzhiev 1950: 309]. Distinct from the more specific inherited term čʼaraχʷ {чIарахв} 'small root' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 377].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut dɨwˈɨl 'root' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. Distinct from the more specific Khlyut term čʼarˈaχʷ 'small root' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: A highly unstable term, frequently superseded with loanwords. We prefer not to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian root at all. The following inherited forms are attested in Nuclear Lezgian lects; all these roots are equal candidates for the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'root'.
1) *malqʼʷˤ [NCED: 809], meaning 'root' in Aghul. The only Lezgian cognate is the word for 'sprout, shoot; nail, stud' in Archi (it could be tempting to connect this root to the not entirely clear Mishlesh Tsakhur word mɨʁlʸi ~ muʁlʸi 'root' via metathesis lQ > Ql, but the uvular and vowel correspondences are irregular). Since the meaning shift between 'root' and 'sprout' is typologically possible in both directions, the original meaning of Proto-Lezgian *malqʼʷˤ cannot be established. External North Caucasian comparison rather points to the semantics of 'sprout'.
2) *ƛʼːiw(a) [NCED: 571], meaning 'root' in Tabasaran, isolated in Lezgian, but possesses Avaro-Andian cognates with the meaning 'root'.
3) *qːʷapː [NCED: 464], meaning 'root' in Rutul, lost in the rest of Lezgian. Possible external North Caucasian comparanda mean 'pit' or 'foundation, base'.
4) Lezgi duwˈul, without etymology.
In other lects, inherited forms were superseded with loanwords: Archi (< Lak), Kryts, Budukh, Tsakhur (< Azerbaijani). In Udi, 'root' is expressed with the form tum which originally meant 'seed', ultimately borrowed from the Azerbaijani or Iranian word for 'seed' q.v.
Finally, it should be noted that in [NCED: 827], there is a Proto-Lezgian root *marqʷ, based on Archi maq 'stake, picket' and Keren Aghul (Richa) marqʷˤ 'root' (with irregular pharyngealization). This root does indeed possess good North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'root', but the internal Lezgian data are insufficient for reconstruction, since the Keren Aghul (Richa) form can hardly be separated from other Aghul words for 'root', which originate from *malqʼʷˤ (see above).
Gukasyan 1974: 139, 271; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 594; Mobili 2010: 172. Another term for 'round' is qːurucː {къуруцI} [Gukasyan 1974: 162; Mobili 2010: 196], semantic nuances as well as etymology are unknown.
Gukasyan 1974: 139, 271; Mobili 2010: 172; Fähnrich 1999: 20. Glossed as 'circle (n.)' in [Schiefner 1863: 82]. Cf. kːakːay with a strange gloss: 'a round object, whose size is less than normally', in [Mobili 2010: 171].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *kːankː- with the cluster simplification in Vartashen. Different suffixal formations in the dialects, although morphological details are not entirely clear.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:gukːˈi-tːu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 232, 364; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593; Mikailov 1967: 177. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], quoted with a typo: gˈukːi-tːu-class. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'. A regular participle from the stative verb gˈukːi 'to be round', probably borrowed from Lak kːurkːi- 'round' (cf. notes in [NCED: 438]; in [Chumakina 2009] labeled as "clearly borrowed from Lak kːukːi 'round'", although such a form seems non-existent in Lak). Reasons for the cluster simplification VrkːV > VkːV in Archi are not clear, but note that in archaic Archi the medial cluster was still retained: gurkːi, gurkːi-tːu-class '(to be) round' [Dirr 1908: 138, 211].
Meylanova 1984: 37; Alekseev 1994: 283. In [Meylanova 1984: 79, 219], additional forms kungu-lu-ti ~ kungu-r-tʼi {кунгулути, кунгуртIи} 'round' are also quoted (the only forms in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593]), which could be errors or expressive variants. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'.
Note that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236] 'round' is glossed as qʼuqʼal, not found in other sources (for this form see [NCED: 933]).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. The exact application is not specified; apparently, 'round 2D / 3D'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:top-xʸilʸi-nʸ3
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593. The exact application is not specified; apparently, 'round 2D / 3D'. Derived from the noun topː-, attested with the meaning 'ball' in the Mishlesh dialect [Kibrik et al. 1999: 888] and Literary Tsakhur [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 341] or 'wheel' in the Mikik dialect [Dirr 1913: 204], borrowed from Azerbaijani top 'ball; hub (of wheel)'. The morphological derivation, however, seems to be inner Tsakhur (the second element -xʸilʸi- from the verb ɨx- 'to become'?), therefore we treat top-xʸilʸi-nʸ 'round' as a full-fledged item.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 58, 350; Ibragimov 1978: 225; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 593. This is quoted by Ibragimov as the basic Ixrek term for 'round' (without discrimination between the '2D' and '3D' meanings?).
Two additional (apparently less frequent) words for 'round' are quoted by Dzhamalov & Semedov, but without any specifications: 1) ruʁu-dɨ {ругъуды} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 217]; 2) tup-dɨ [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 248]. The latter seems to reflect internal Ixrek derivation from an unattested *tup 'ball', borrowed from Azerbaijani top 'ball' (the same is observed in Gelmets Tsakhur top-xʸilʸi-nʸ 'round').
The stem gɨrg-ɨ-n-, retained in Ixrek and Borch-Khnov, must be posited as the Proto-Rutul expression for 'round (2D/3D)'. This is confirmed by external comparison.
The stem ru-class-ʁ- 'round' is a Mukhad-Luchek innovation (marginally attested in Ixrek), derived from a verbal root which is attested as Mukhad ruʁ- 'to become round' [Makhmudova 2001: 182, 243], Ixrek ruʁ- 'to walk around, hang around' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 217], Ixrek ʁ=urʁ- 'to turn (intrans.)' (initial ʁ= is a prefix with general semantics). The initial consonant r- in ruʁ- belongs to the root, but can sometimes become contaminated with the class 1/2 exponent r=.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. Meaning: 'round 3D'. Probably dissimilated from *al=arc-ri-r - a regular past participle from the verb 'to turn', see common Aghul notes.
Distinct from tʼaˤrlič, which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236] for the meaning 'round 2D'. There also exists a third Burshag term: cʼekːʷ 'round' [Shaumyan 1941: 189] (glossed simply as 'round'); actually it seems to be an error on the part of Shaumyan, because this form is to be read as the substantive cʼekʼʷ 'skein, hank' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 145].
Cf. in other subdialects: Arsug or Khudig kːurʢ-ne-d, al=alc-ni-d 'round' [Suleymanov 2003: 51] (both glossed simply as 'round', application and exact dialectal provenance are unknown).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Suleymanov 1993: 65; Dirr 1907: 109, 175; Shaumyan 1941: 189. The former form is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] as 'round 3D' and in [Suleymanov 1993] without specifications; the latter one is from [Dirr 1907] and [Shaumyan 1941] with an example for 'round 2D': "round table" [Dirr 1907: 109].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236; Shaumyan 1941: 189. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], meaning 'round 3D'; in [Shaumyan 1941], quoted without semantic specifications.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe gurg-e-n-f, Khpyuk gilg-e-n-f [Shaumyan 1941: 189; Suleymanov 1993: 65] - both glossed simply as 'round', application unknown; Kurag gilg-e-n- 'round 3D' [Magometov 1970: 206 sentence 21] ("round stone").
AGX_NOTES:
The semantic opposition 'round 3D' / 'round 2D' is highly atypical for Dagestanian languages. The emergence of such an opposition is obviously a recent innovation of the Koshan, Fite, and possibly some other dialects of Aghul.
The non-Koshan dialects retain the basic Proto-Lezgian root *girgʷV- 'round (3D, 2D)' [NCED: 438], although its phonetical reflexes are rather unstable and irregular (as in other Lezgian languages as well). Koshan kːurʢ-ne-d 'round' may theoretically continue the same Proto-Lezgian root *girgʷV- 'round'.
In Koshan and Fite the past participles from the verb 'to turn' have been introduced for 'round 3D' (Koshan al=arc-ni-r ~ al=alc-ni-d) and 'round 2D' (Fite al=urcu-t). The proper verbal stem is attested as Koshan al=arc-ana- 'to turn (trans., intrans.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 82; Suleymanov 2003: 27], Keren (Usug) al=urc-a- 'to turn (trans.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 137], Gequn al=urc-a- 'to go round smth.' [Dirr 1907: 101], Proper Aghul (Tpig) al=urc-a- 'to turn (trans.)' [Shaumyan 1941: 137; Suleymanov 2003: 27] (al= is an old spatial prefix).
Koshan (Burshag) tʼaˤrlič 'round 2D' is an obscure form.
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236. The accent pattern indicates that the form is a recent compound, although the first element cʼi= is unclear.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: cʼˈi=gurgu-mi 'round' [Dirr 1905: 161, 232] (not found in [Uslar 1979]). Plain stem in the Khyuryuk subdialect: gurgu-mˈi {гургуми} 'round' [Genko 2005: 38].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: gerg-mˈi {гергми} 'round' [Genko 2005: 37]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: gerg-mˈi {гергми} 'round (2D, 3D)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 98].
TAB_NOTES:
Apparently with polysemy: 'round (2D, 3D)' in all the dialects.
Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 393; Gadzhiev 1950: 320; Haspelmath 1993: 525. This is actually the Literary Lezgi word; the proper Gyune term for 'round' is not documented in [Uslar 1896]. Polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'. Participle from the literary verb el=qːʷˈe- {элкъвуьн} 'to turn (intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 393; Haspelmath 1993: 487] = Gyune äl=qːʷˈe- 'to turn (intrans.)' [Uslar 1896: 352] (Vl= is an old spatial prefix).
The same participle in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut el=qːʷˈä-y 'round 3D/2D' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 236].
Proto-Lezgian:*girgʷV1
NCED: 438. Distribution: This stem is retained with the basic meaning in Udi, on the one hand, and in almost all Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. Normally, the polysemy 'round 3D / round 2D' is observed, although some Aghul dialects introduce the lexical opposition 'round 3D' / 'round 2D'.
In Aghul dialects and Lezgi, 'round' ('3D/2D', '3D' or '2D) represents a synchronic participle from the verb 'to turn': *ʔilcal [NCED: 649] or *ʔirqːʷä- (~ -ʁʷ-) [NCED: 650]. Similarly in some Rutul dialects (Mukhad, Ixrek, Luchek), 'round' is synchronically derived from the verb 'to be round; to walk around, hang around': the same Proto-Lezgian root *ʔirqːʷä- (~ -ʁʷ-), as in Lezgi, but with slightly different synchronic meaning.
In Gelmets Tsakhur, Ixrek Rutul, 'round' is derived from the noun for 'ball' or 'wheel'.
Etymologically unclear forms include Nidzh Udi qːurucː, Alyk Kryts bembeleɢʷatʼa, Koshan Aghul tʼaˤrlič.
Reconstruction shape: Particular correspondences are not regular, especially in the case of the medial resonant. Despite this, most of the listed forms can hardly be kept apart from each other.
Semantics and structure: Primary nominal or stative verbal root with polysemy: 'round 3D / round 2D'.
Gukasyan 1974: 161; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31; Mobili 2010: 196. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. A second term for 'sand' quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31] is šum {шум}, which at first sight looks like an etymological retention, but is, in fact, a graphical confusion between Nidzh qːum and Vartashen ša (Dm. Ganenkov, p.c.).
Gukasyan 1974: 246; Mobili 2010: 196, 254; Fähnrich 1999: 29; Schiefner 1863: 91; Starchevskiy 1891: 505. According to [Fähnrich 1999], with polysemy: 'sand / road metal'. In [Schulze 2001: 315] only the Azerbaijani loan qːum is quoted.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *ša.
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested.
Archi:sˈarsi2
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 313, 373; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31; Mikailov 1967: 197. Specified as 'sand, very fine gravel' in [Chumakina et al. 2007].
Distinct from qum 'sand; down, small feathers' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 298, 373; Mikailov 1967: 203], specified as 'seaside sand' in [Chumakina et al. 2007]. In the meaning 'sand' represents an Azerbaijani loanword.
Dirr 1912: 183, 197; Ibragimov 1978: 118. The assimilated variant šum is attested in [Dirr 1912] as well as in [Ibragimov 1978: 138] (as a toponymical element); glossed by Dirr as 'sand, fine gravel'. In [Ibragimov 1978: 118], two Mukhad synonyms are quoted for 'sand': šim and secʼ. In [Makhmudova 2001] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], only the latter word has been found.
Ixrek Rutul:qːum {къум}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 158, 372. It must be noted that in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 31], 'sand' is glossed as secʼ {сецI}.
Luchek Rutul:qːum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
RUT_NOTES:
Borch-Khnov: šüˤm ~ šum 'sand' [Ibragimov 1978: 229, 231] (with secondary pharyngealization). Cf. also Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad) šum 'shale' or 'schistose sandstone' (Russian: 'сланец') [Ibragimov 1978: 136].
External Lezgian comparison suggests that the Proto-Rutul term for 'sand' was *šim, retained in the Mukhad and Borch-Khnov dialects. The Mukhad (and Ixrek?) word secʼ 'sand' is of unknown origin. Ixrek and Luchek qːum was borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'.
For the Usug subdialect, two words are glossed as 'sand' in [Shaumyan 1941: 160, 188]: borrowed qːum and inherited rug. The difference between the two terms is unknown.
In all dialects the Azerbaijani loanword has been introduced in the meaning 'sand' (qːum < Azerbaijani gum 'sand'), except for Usug Keren, where the inherited rug 'sand' is attested instead. Usug rug represents the Common Aghul word for 'dust' (shifted to 'earth' in some Aghul dialects, see notes on 'earth'). Theoretically, one can reconstruct Proto-Aghul *rug with polysemy: 'dust / sand', but alternatively, this could be an Usug innovation or even an inaccurate gloss on the part of Shaumyan.
Northern Tabasaran:ɢum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: qːum 'sand' [Uslar 1979: 831, 1001] (not attested in [Dirr 1905]); distinct from Khanag sims {симс} 'gravel' [Uslar 1979: 908]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Genko 2005: 102]; distinct from Khyuryuk sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Genko 2005: 139].
Southern Tabasaran:ʁum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Genko 2005: 102]. Distinct from the more specific Khiv terms: sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Genko 2005: 139] and šim {шим} 'shale sand, hazel (used to cover the roof)' [Genko 2005: 190].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁum {гъум} 'sand' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 115]; distinct from sims {симс} 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 271] and šim {шим} 'gruss' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 350].
TAB_NOTES:
In all the dialects the basic term represents a borrowing from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. Common Tabasaran sims 'coarse (i.e. river) sand' also looks like a loanword, although the source is unclear. In contrast, Southern šim 'shale sand, gravel' is an inherited form.
Gyune Lezgi:qːum-1
Uslar 1896: 494, 623. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gum 'sand'. Distinct from inherited Gyune šim 'gravel, coarse sand' [Uslar 1896: 602, 623]
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: qːum {къум} 'sand' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193; Gadzhiev 1950: 534; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 525]. Distinct from inherited šim {шим} 'gruss' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 385].
The same loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːɨm 'sand' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199]. Khlyut ɨm < um is a late process, cf., e.g., inherited gɨm 'smoke'.
Proto-Lezgian:*šːäm1
NCED: 340. Distribution: Inherited words for 'sand' were almost totally superseded with the Azerbaijani loanword in Lezgian lects, although *šːäm is retained with the basic meaning 'sand' in Vartashen Udi and Rutul (Mukhad, Borch-Khnov). This root is also attested in many Nuclear Lezgian lects in such specific meanings as 'road metal', 'coarse sand'. Formally, available Nuclear Lezgian evidence allows us to reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *šːäm with polysemy: 'sand / fine gravel / road metal'.
In Keren Aghul (Usug), *rukː 'dust' [NCED: 603] can secondarily acquire the meaning 'sand'.
Etymologically unclear forms for 'sand' are Archi sˈarsi, Mukhad Rutul secʼ.
Maisak 2008a: 108-110; Maisak 2008b: 163; Schulze 2005: 539 (3.4.2.1 #22). In [Gukasyan 1974: 188; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 765; Mobili 2010: 232] only the masdar pesun {песун} is quoted.
According to [Maisak 2008a: 108 ff., 149], the verb has a suppletive paradigm: ne(χ)- (present) / (u)p- (infinitive) / up- (imperative) / p- (past) / ukː- (future). In the present forms the variant ne- is normally used, when it is followed by a group of clitical markers that contains a person exponent; in other cases, the variant neχ- is used (T. Maisak's p. c.., see also [Maisak 2008a: 109, 149]). The variant neχ- is apparently primary, whereas ne- demonstrates secondary reduction.
The infinitive variants up- and p- are distributed as follows: p- in the infinitive p-es and, as a doublet, in the masdar p-es-un; the variant up- is used in the masdar up-s-un and in the oblique stem of the infinitive up-s- [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.].
The general suppletive pattern is the same in both dialects, although some important details differ. The main difficulty is in the discrepancy between present tense roots Nidzh neχ- and Vartashen eχ-, which do not correspond to each other. Currently, we do not see any phonetic or morphological way to compare these morphemes etymologically. It must be noted that it is possible to propose some Lezgian comparanda for Vartashen eχ-, but probably not for Nidzh neχ-.
The reconstruction of Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi paradigm is a more intricate question, because both neχ- and eχ- lack cognates in known Caucasian Albanian lexicon.
On one hand, the Udi present (n)eχ- looks like a pure archaism, since this is the only Udi verb whose present tense forms are not derived from the infinitive [Maisak 2008a: 109] (on the secondary origin of the modern Udi present pattern see [Maisak 2008b: 169 ff.]).
On the other hand, the Caucasian Albanian present stem ukʼ-a- directly corresponds to the modern Nidzh conjunctive ukː-a-, cited, e.g., in [Maisak 2008b: 206 (ex. 92)] (the hypothesis that the modern Udi conjunctive with thematic -a- originates from the old present has perspicaciously been proposed in [Maisak 2008b: 208 ff., 216] and is now proven by Caucasian Albanian data).
In the light of the latter, the modern Udi present tense morphemes (n)eχ- look like a recent innovation that superseded old ukː- in the present forms, whereas ukː- is still retained in the conjunctive and the al-participle (on the basis of which the future tense is formed in modern Udi).
In fact, the situation is quite unclear. Note also a likely hypothesis that in the verb system the general proto-opposition was imperfective (= present) with thematic -a- vs. perfective (= past) with thematic -i- (or -e-?) [Maisak 2008b: 208].
Another issue to be discussed is the variation of the morphemes up- ~ p-, which are used for the infinitive, past and imperative both in Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi. It must be noted that the distribution of the variants with and without u- is not fully the same in Caucasian Albanian, Nidzh and Vartashen. In the light of the Caucasian Albanian data, it is natural to suppose that the modern Udi infinitive-masdar forms with p- (p-es, p-esun) are secondary (these are probably leveled up after the past stem p(e)-).
Thus, we have at least three archaic verbs with the fluctuation between uC- and CV- within the paradigm, namely:
It is obvious that we deal with the remnant of some kind of ablaut: *V1CV in the infinitive, imperative and present(?) (> CA-Udi uC-) vs. *V2CV in the past (> CA-Udi CV- with reduction of the initial vowel). For Ablaut in Proto-Lezgian, see some preliminary observations in [NCED: 166 ff.]. Out of several supposed patterns the best traced one is *i (the infinitive and terminative stems, scil. perfective) vs. *ä (the durative stem, scil. imperfective). This could be the Caucasian Albanian-Udi case, although Proto-Lezgian TMA oppositions as well as segmental vocalic reconstruction have not yet been sufficiently elaborated.
Summing up, the following Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi suppletive paradigm for 'to say' can be reconstructed with relative safety: *ukʼ-a- (imperfective) / *up- (infinitive, imperative) / *p(e)- (perfective). The origin as well as the paradigmatic status of the modern present roots, Nidzh neχ-, Vartashen eχ-, are obscure.
The present stem appears in two variants: ukʼ-a- and k'-a-. The general distribution is as follows: ukʼ-a- in plain forms / kʼ-a- as a second root in verbal compounds (although with minor exceptions in both directions). Obviously, ukʼ- is the original variant, whereas kʼ- represents a secondary syncope of the first vowel (apparently caused by vowel contraction at the morpheme boundaries).
As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 71; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Chumakina et al. 2007], a suppletive verb: bo- [inf., perf.] / war- [imperf.] / ba [imv.]. We treat bo- and wa-r- as synonyms (although both synchronic roots are etymologically related).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 148. Missing from [Meylanova 1984] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 71 sub yersɨz].
Synchronically suppletive verb: yuʔu-r- [imperf.] / yɨpǝ- [perf., imv.] / yu-mo-ʔu [prohib.]. We treat yuʔu- and yɨpǝ- as synonyms (although both synchronic morphemes are etymologically related). Initial y- could theoretically be the prefix 'across' [Alekseev 1994: 271].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 765], 'to say' is incorrectly glossed as ħaraqʼar- {хIаракьар}, which in fact means 'to tell, speak' [Meylanova 1984: 149; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 149].
Distinct from yišon-(h)aʔ- 'to tell, speak' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880], a formation from yišo 'a k. of poem' with the verb (h=)aʔ- 'to do' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 58 f.].
The same apophonic root is attested with various prefixes: ʁ=axu- {гъахьус} 'to say smth. to another person to impart it to a third person' [Makhmudova 2001: 120], q=uxu- 'to retell' [Ibragimov 1978: 121].
The original root is =uxʷ- (as proved by the thematic -u- in the imperfective stem), although the imperative and prohibitive forms have been secondarily delabialized in the modern dialects (a common Rutul process of the delabialization of verbal roots).
Initial r= is the imperfective exponent.
Koshan Aghul:kː-a-5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 148; Magometov 1970: 228 sentences 7, 9, 13. Suppletive stem: kː-a- [imperf.] / p-una-w [perf.] / ip [imv.] / p-a- [inf., prohib.]. The imperfective stem is missing from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], but attested in the Burshag text from [Magometov 1970]. The imperfective stem kː-a- 'to say' is also attested in the Arsug and Khudig subdialects, see [Magometov 1970: 230 sentences 9, 10; 234 sentences 17, 18; 236 sentences 6, 12; 236 sentences 17, 25].
Distinct from Tpig ʁurʁa- 'to speak' [Suleymanov 2003: 56].
AGX_NOTES:
The Koshan and non-Koshan dialects differ as to the imperfective stem: Koshan kː-a- / non-Koshan aʁ-a-. The Lezgian etymology of both imperfective roots is not entirely clear.
Uslar 1896: 499, 632. Ablaut paradigm: l=uhˈu- [imperf.] / l=ahˈa- [perf.] / l=ah [imv.]. Initial l= is a fossilized prefix. Distinct from two Gyune verbs for 'to speak': lekʼʷˈen- / lekʼˈün- [Uslar 1896: 498, 608] and gafˈar- [Uslar 1896: 376, 608] - the latter is historically a complex verb 'to do words', consisting of gaf-ˈar 'words' and eyˈi- / awˈu- 'to do'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: l=uhˈu- [imperf.] / l=ahˈa- [perf.] / l=ah ~ l=aha [imv.] {лугьун} 'to say' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 225; Gadzhiev 1950: 769; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 525; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 21]. Distinct from literary raχˈa- [imperf.] / raχˈu- [perf.] {рахун} 'to speak' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 273; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 146] and lükʼün- {луькIуьнун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 226; Gadzhiev 1950: 144; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 23] - the latter verb is marked as "dialectal" in the dictionaries.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiʔʷˤɨ-3
NCED: 625. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'to say' in all the lects, except for Rutul. The suppletive paradigm of 'to say' with two etymologically different roots for the imperfective and perfective stems is only attested in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and two East Lezgian languages: Aghul, Tabasaran. In these languages, *ʔiʔʷˤɨ- is restricted to the perfective stem, whereas the imperfective stems contain various roots that differ even within dialects of one language (because of this, there are no reasons to postulate the suppletive opposition between perfective and imperfective stems for Proto-Lezgian).
In Caucasian Albanian, the imperfective root is *ʔilkʼʷan [NCED: 634], whose original meaning was 'to talk, speak' vel sim.
In Udi, two present (imperfective) roots are attested: neχ- (Nidzh), eχ- (Vartashen), whose etymological origin is unclear. Formally, Vartashen eχ- can be compared to the scantily attested Nuclear Lezgian verb *ʔerχʷa 'to ask; to read' [NCED: 604].
In Tabasaran, the root *ʔeƛʼʷV [NCED: 413] acquired the imperfective function within the paradigm 'to say'. The exact protomeaning of *ʔeƛʼʷV cannot be reconstructed, 'a k. of verbum dicendi'.
In Aghul, two different roots were introduced for the imperfective stem: kː-a- (Koshan dialect), aʁ-a- (non-Koshan dialects). Their etymology is not entirely clear.
Finally, in Rutul, *ʔiʔʷˤɨ- 'to say' was totally superseded with *ʔoɬːʷa- [NCED: 1011], whose original meaning was 'to be silent' vel sim. as proved by both the Lezgian cognates and the external North Caucasian comparanda. The direct shift 'to be silent' > 'to say' does not seem possible; thus, the hypothetical chain 'to keep silent' > 'to listen' > 'to cause to listen' > 'to say', proposed in [NCED], appears to be a good solution.
Replacements: {'to be silent' > 'to say'} (Rutul).
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, although reflexes in individual languages are seriously tangled because of the class infix *pː, which is especially typical for the perfective variant of the root. Caucasian Albanian-Udi -p- can be either the direct reflex of *ʔʷ (thus [NCED]) or rather a trace of the same infix.
Common Udi *akː-esun 'to see' as opposed to *beʁˤ-esun 'to look' (historically *b=eʁˤ- with the fossilized class prefix). The complex verb 'to find' is based on the ablauted variant of the latter root: Nidzh b=aʁˤ-ap-sun, Vartashen b=oʁˤ-ap-sun [Gukasyan 1974: 74] (-(a)p- is a light verb with general semantics; note the assimilative labialization a > o in Vartashen).
Caucasian Albanian: akʼ-esun [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5]. Distinct from beʁ-esun 'to look' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-8] (with the preverb čʼe= this means 'to hope, expect, wait').
Kibrik et al. 1999: 875, 892; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 208; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668. According to [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], with an ablaut paradigm in Literary Tsakhur: qː=eǯ-e [imperf.] / qː=aǯ-ɨ [perf.] / qː=aǯ-es [fut.]; but for Mishlesh, a non-ablaut paradigm qː=aǯ- (qː=aǯ-e- [imperf., fut.] / qː=aǯ-ɨ [perf.]) is recorded in [Kibrik et al. 1999].
It should also be noted that in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] some forms are quoted that can point to old labialized -ǯʷ- (masdar 1/4 qː-aǯʷ-iː {къаджвий}, neg. masdar 1/4 qː-id-eǯʷ-iː, 2 qː-id-e-y-ǯʷ-iː), although the perfective stem is qː-aǯ-ɨ, not **qː-aǯ-u.
Distinct from ilʸ=akː- 'to look' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878] (ilʸ= is a prefix).
Ibragimov 1990: 46; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668. The future stem ʁ=až-ez is attested, as well as the variant ʁ=ež- in the negative future (ʁ=id=ež-ez) [Ibragimov 1990: 197].
TKR_NOTES:
Note sporadic -ǯʷ- in Mishlesh. Initial ʁ= (Mishlesh qː=) is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 124; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 61, 327. Paradigm: ʁ=ägʷ-ä-r- [perf.] / ʁ=äg-u-r [perf.]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 668], quoted with an error.
Distinct from g=eqː- {гекъкъын} 'to look' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 52]; the same verb is quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 197, 214] as gʸ=aq- {гʹахъас} 'to look' (apparently an error for expected **gʸ=aq- {гʹах̄ъас}).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 173; Suleymanov 2003: 15; Shaumyan 1941: 140; Magometov 1970: 229 sentences 8, 14. All the sources quote this root with tense qːˤ, except for [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], where the lax (aspirated) qˤ is transcribed. The external Lezgian comparison also speaks in favour of the tense uvular [NCED: 547]. Apparently a typo in Kibrik & Kodzasov's dictionary.
The same in other subdialects: Arsug, Khudig raqːˤ-a- 'to see' [Magometov 1970: 234 sentence 36; 236 sentence 39; 237 sentence 49; Shaumyan 1941: 140].
The same in other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug agʷ-a- 'to see' [Shaumyan 1941: 140].
Distinct from Tpig qu=tː=urf-ana- 'to look' [Suleymanov 2003: 183].
AGX_NOTES:
The Koshan dialect (raqːˤ-a- 'to see') is opposed to the non-Koshan ones (agʷ-a- 'to see'). The Koshan (Burshag) etymological cognate for the latter verb is ug-a- ~ agʷ-a- 'to seek' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 66]. Although both of the meanings ('to see' and 'to seek') can theoretically originate from one root for 'to watch' vel sim., the external Lezgian etymology suggests that the Proto-Aghul verb for 'to see' was agʷ-a-, whereas raqːˤ-a- originally expressed a controlled action, such as 'to look, watch'. The shift of the Koshan verb raqːˤ-a- to the meaning 'to see' was influenced on the part of the Tabasaran language (q.v.), where the same semantic development occurred. It is interesting that in the Kryts-Budukh subbranch the etymological cognates of Aghul raqːˤ-a- also demonstrate the meaning shift to generic 'to see' - apparently an independent innovation.
Note the rare case of retention of the Lezgian imperfective infix -r- in the Gequn and Proper Aghul imperfective stem a-r-gʷ-a- (cf. [Suleymanov 1993: 138 f.]).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: raqːˤ-ˈ {рякъюб} 'to see' [Genko 2005: 135]; distinct from Khiv liɣ-ˈ {лиггуб} 'to look' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: raqːˤ-ˈ {рябкъюб} 'to see' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 263]; distinct from literary liɣ-ˈ {либгуб} 'to look' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 217].
In the Khoredzh subdialect: arqːˤ- {аьркъю} 'to see' [Genko 2005: 24].
TAB_NOTES:
Both shapes, AQ- (Northern) and RAQ- (Southern), are etymologically related and originate from the metathetical variants *ARQ- and *RAQ- respectively (< Lezgian *ʔarqʼːˤä-). The cluster *RQ was simplified in Northern Tabasaran, but retained in the Southern (Khoredzh) form arqːˤ-, unless it is to be analyzed as a-r-qːˤ- with the fossilized class infix -r-. The Northern (Khyuryuk) suppletive paradigm raqːˤ-ˈ / aqːˤ-ˈ might be the most archaic; in the rest of the subdialects one of the variants has spread across the paradigm.
The same in Literary Lezgi: akːʷˈa- [imperf.] / akːˈu- [perf.] {акун} 'to see' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 36; Gadzhiev 1950: 86; Haspelmath 1993: 480, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 56] (in [Haspelmath 1993] incorrectly quoted as akːˈa-). Distinct from two literary verbs for 'to look': kilˈig- {килигун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 158; Gadzhiev 1950: 788; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 354] and tamˈaš- {тамашун} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 305; Gadzhiev 1950: 788; Haspelmath 1993: 507, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 241] - the latter is historically a complex verb 'to do showing', consisting of the Persian-Azerbaijani loanword tamaša 'performance, show' and iyˈi- / awˈu- 'to do'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔakːʷä-1
NCED: 255. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic root for 'to see' in both outliers (Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi) and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: Rutul, non-Koshan Aghul, Lezgi. In Tabasaran and Koshan Aghul, *ʔakːʷä- shifted to the meaning 'to search' (a Tabasaran-induced isogloss), whereas in Tsakhur, this acquired the meaning 'to show' (in Tsakhur, 'to see' is expressed with an etymologically obscure root, whose protoform could be *ʔačːV- [LEDb: #207]). In Luchek Rutul, *ʔakːʷä-, modified with another prefix, also means 'to find': aq=agʷ- [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 67].
The second root, well attested with the generic meaning 'to see', is *ʔarqʼːˤä- [NCED: 547]. It means 'to see' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), on the one hand, and in Tabasaran and Koshan Aghul, on the other. Apparently we deal with two independent Nuclear Lezgian shifts (the latter case represents a Tabasaran-induced isogloss). The exact meaning of *ʔarqʼːˤä- is not entirely clear, but actually, this is the best candidate for the basic Proto-Lezgian verb, denoting controlled action ('to look'), because *ʔarqʼːˤä- is reflected as 'to look' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi (b=eʁˤ-; also as 'to find' in Udi), on the one hand, and in Rutul (g=aqː-), on the other.
A second, weaker, candidate for 'to look' is *ʔakV- / *ʔokV- [NCED: 598], which is attested as 'to look' in Archi and in Alyk Kryts. In other Nuclear Lezgian, *ʔakV- / *ʔokV- means 'to find' (Kryts Proper, Tsakhur), 'to search' (Aghul), 'to ask' (Rutul).
In Proto-East Lezgian, the old root for 'to look' (*ʔarqʼːˤä- or *ʔakV- / *ʔokV-) was superseded with *liƛː[a] [NCED: 209]. This stem is attested as 'to look' in Koshan Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi, but was lost in the rest of Lezgian languages.
In non-Koshan Aghul, *liƛː[a] was replaced with certain prefixed forms, whose root is reconstructed as *ʔVrɬ(ː)ʷVn in [NCED: 1031]; this Aghul root lacks Lezgian cognates, but may possess external North Caucasian comparanda.
Finally, in individual Nuclear Lezgian lects, several verbs for 'to look' are attested, whose etymology is not entirely clear: Kryts (proper) k=ösɨ-, Budukh irħä-, Tsakhur ilʸ=akː-.
Gukasyan 1974: 233; Fähnrich 1999: 11; Schiefner 1863: 89; Schulze 2001: 265. There are two additional words, glossed in [Schulze 2001] as 'seed': bitːun 'seed' [Schulze 2001: 138 fn. 5, 259] and tum 'root; seed; gender' [Schulze 2001: 325]. However, neither of them means 'seed (botanic)' in the texts included in [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] (for tum see notes on Udi 'root' and Proto-Lezgian 'seed').
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *cil. Apparently a Proto-Lezgian word, see [Alekseev 2008: 317]. Schulze proposes that the Udi term was borrowed from Old Armenian čiwɫ ~ čiɫ 'branch, bough; stump, stock, stem; finger' (thus [Schulze 2001: 265]) or Old Armenian cʰeɫ 'tribe, caste, race, branch' (thus [Gippert et al. 2008: II-68]). Both hypothetical sources of borrowing are unlikely, from semantic and sociolinguistic points of view.
Caucasian Albanian: qʼar with polysemy 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic)' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30]. Cf. also ruʁ 'clan, kin, posterity / fruit' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-37], which is not attested in the meaning 'seed (botanic)' pace [Gippert et al. 2008: II-68] (because of the initial r-, ruʁ should be a borrowing from unknown source).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 345, 380; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391; Mikailov 1967: 191. Polysemy: 'seed / sperm'. Paradigm: ɬːʷin [abs.] / ɬːunː-ˈi [erg.] / ɬːunː-ˈi-t [loc.]. Oblique forms like ɬːunːˈi could alternatively be analyzed as ɬun- + the common oblique suffix -li (with the regular assimilation nl > nː), but this suffix is always unaccented [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 16 f.], which is not the case here. An unclear situation, because Lezgian and North Caucasian comparison strongly predicts the lax -n-.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
Meylanova 1984: 136, 239; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / clan, kin'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391] 'seed' is incorrectly glossed as kʼap {кIап} and cʼɨcʼ {цIыцI}, which actually mean 'stone (of fruit, berry)' [Meylanova 1984: 98] and 'small black seeds in rice' [Meylanova 1984: 151] respectively.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:toχum {тохум}-1
Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 343. Not attested in [Kibrik et al. 1999]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is quoted as tum (another Azerbaijani loanword).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: dʸenʸe [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111]. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
Mikik Tsakhur:dʸenʸe-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:dʸenʸe-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Polysemy: 'seed / a grain'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani dänä '(a) grain'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is quoted as tum (another Azerbaijani loanword).
It should be noted that in [Dirr 1912: 173, 202], 'seed' is quoted as tom (borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms).
Ixrek Rutul:tuχum {тухум}-1
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 391; Ibragimov 1978: 223, 225. It must be noted that in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 249] tuχum is glossed only as 'clan, kin'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity'.
A second term for 'seed' is tum {тум} with polysemy: 'clan, kin / seed (botanic)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 248]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 391], 'seed' is erroneously quoted as suk, which actually means 'wheat; grain' in Ixrek [Ibragimov 1978: 205, 225].
Luchek Rutul:tuχum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Borrowed from Azerbaijani toxum 'seed'.
RUT_NOTES:
The Proto-Rutul term for 'seed' cannot be reconstructed with certainty, because Mukhad suk 'seed' seems a recent introduction (not yet noted in [Dirr 1912]), derived from the meaning 'grain', cf. Khnyukh Rutul (subdialect of Mukhad) suk 'grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 136], Shinaz Rutul suk 'grain' [Dirr 1912: 171], Ixrek Rutul suk 'wheat; grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 205, 223, 225], Luchek Rutul suk 'a grain' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111], Borch-Khnov Rutul suk 'a grain' [Ibragimov 1978: 292], further to Tsakhur suk 'wheat' [Dirr 1913: 203].
Cf. also the old root for 'seed', which is retained as Borch-Khnov xin {хьин} ‘wheat’ [Ibragimov 1978: 283], Ixrek xin-če {хьинче} ‘beverage of barley flour (home brew)’ [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 282].
The Aghul word was borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms. The form dil can be posited as the Proto-Aghul term for 'stone of fruit'.
Northern Tabasaran:tum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111. Distinct from Dyubek dil 'stone (of fruit)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 109].
The same loanword in the Khanag subdialect: tum 'seed; grain' [Uslar 1979: 916, 1005]; distinct from inherited dil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Uslar 1979: 668, 1005] (neither of the words is attested in [Dirr 1905]).
Similarly in the Khyuryuk subdialect: tum {тум} 'seed; grain' [Genko 2005: 144]; distinct from inherited dil {дил} 'seed' [Genko 2005: 60]; the difference between the two terms is not specified by Genko, but, most likely, dil denotes specifically 'seed (of vegetable, berry), stone', since the Russian gloss "семя" possesses both meanings.
Southern Tabasaran:tum-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111.
The same loanword in the Khiv subdialect: tum {тум} with polysemy: 'seed / grain / ferment (for milk)' [Genko 2005: 144]; distinct from Khiv cːil {ццил} 'seed' [Genko 2005: 176], the difference between the two terms is not specified by Genko, and in reality cːil should rather denote 'seed (of vegetable, berry), stone' (see notes on the Khanag and Khyuryuk subdialects above). It must be noted that phonetically Khiv cːil is apparently a borrowing from Lezgi cːil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)', rather than an etymological counterpart of inherited Northern Tabasaran dil, see [Genko 2005: 233].
Similarly in Literary Tabasaran: tum {тум} with polysemy: 'seed / grain / ferment (for milk)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 283]. Distinct from literary dil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 148], which could, in fact, be a Northern form.
TAB_NOTES:
The Tabasaran word tum was borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms.
Uslar 1896: 568, 634. An important archaism which synchronically competes with tum 'seed (botanic) / posterity' [Uslar 1896: 555, 634], borrowed from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from the corresponding Iranian terms. Distinct from Gyune cːil 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Uslar 1896: 582].
The basic term for 'seed' in Literary Lezgi is the loanword tum {тум} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 315; Gadzhiev 1950: 761; Haspelmath 1993: 508, 526], although the inherited word fin {фин} 'seed' also exists [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 335]. Distinct from literary cːil {цил} 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358; Haspelmath 1993: 483].
Only the loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut tɨm 'seed' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 111]. Khlyut ɨm < um is a late process, cf., e.g., inherited gɨm 'smoke'. Distinct from Khlyut cːil 'stone (of fruit)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 109].
Proto-Lezgian:*ɬːʷin2
NCED: 1021. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'seed' in Archi, on the one hand, and in one Nuclear Lezgian language (Lezgi), on the other. This word is also attested in Rutul with the meaning 'wheat' or 'barley' and in Kryts with the meaning 'flax' (Kryts xin 'flax' is quoted in [NCED: 1022]). From the distributional point of view, *ɬːʷin is the best candidate for the status of Proto-Lezgian 'seed'. External North Caucasian comparison supports such a reconstruction.
In Udi, *ɬːʷin was superseded with the form cil. Its Nuclear Lezgian cognates imply the Proto-Lezgian stem *tːil with the original meaning 'stone (of fruit), seed (of vegetable, berry)' (> Gyune Lezgi cːil 'id.', Northern Tabasaran dil 'id.', Aghul dil 'id.'), see [Alekseev 2008: 317].
In Caucasian Albanian, the word qʼar is attested for 'seed' with polysemy: 'tribe / clan, kin / nation, people / seed (botanic)'. Its only Lezgian cognate is the second component of the Udi compound iš-qːar 'men' (where iš is the singular form 'man' q.v.). The original meaning of Caucasian Albanian-Udi qʼar is not clear; it should be noted that the shift 'tribe, clan' > 'seed (botanic)' does not seem normal, whereas the opposite direction of semantic development is quite common.
In Mukhad Rutul, suk 'seed' is a recent introduction; the Proto-Rutul meaning of suk was apparently 'grain, a grain'.
In the bulk of Nuclear Lezgian lects, 'seed' is expressed with forms that have the general shape of tum, tuχum, or dene. The latter two are transparent Azerbaijani loanwords, whereas tum requires additional comments.
The most widespread shape of the word for 'seed' in Lezgian is actually tum, which means 'seed' in Nuclear Lezgian, but 'root' q.v. in Udi. Apparently proceeding from this fact (the semantic opposition between the Nuclear Lezgian and Udi meanings could be explained as a result of semantic evolution during long separate language development) and from some East Caucasian comparanda (first and foremost, Proto-Nakh *tɦum 'corn-cob; core of a plant'), the authors of [NCED] postulate the Proto-Lezgian term *tum(a) 'seed' and, further, the Proto-East Caucasian root *thʷǝ̆mV 'seed', considered to be an early borrowing from Iranian (Proto-Iranian *taukman ~ *tauxman 'seed', Avestan taoxman 'seed; kin', Persian tuxm 'seed; sperm; egg', etc.). As a particular result of this, there are two closely synonymous terms in Modern Azerbaijani: toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity' and tum 'seed (botanic); posterity'. The former represents a borrowing from Persian tuxm 'seed; kin', whereas the latter was borrowed from Lezgian languages. See [NCED: 991 f.]. Such a scenario faces several difficulties:
1) the hypothetical Proto-East Caucasian *thʷǝ̆mV 'seed' is too scantily attested in known languages, and its presumed original meaning 'seed' is only retained in Lezgian;
2) it is hard to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgian term for 'seed' because of the "criss-crossed" situation where two roots enter into competition: *ɬːʷin (Archi, Lezgi) and *tum(a) (various Nuclear Lezgian lects);
3) both Azerbaijani words, tum and toxum, possess a number of derivative stems and do not look like recent introductions;
4) the normal direction of lexical borrowing is Azerbaijani/Iranian → Lezgian, but not vice versa. This particularly concerns the terms for 'seed' in Lezgian, which frequently represent Azerbaijani loanwords (toxum, dänä). The idea of borrowing of such a term from Lezgian into Azerbaijani is unlikely not only sociolinguistically, but also economically;
5) there are phonetically similar words for 'seed' in the neighboring Modern Iranian languages: Judeo-Tat, Muslim Tat tum 'seed (botanic)', Talysh tüm 'seed (botanic); seedling; clan, kin'. These forms regularly originate from Iranian *taukman ~ *tauxman, there is no need to treat them as Lezgian or Azerbaijani loanwords.
In the light of these points, the following scenario seems more likely:
1) both Azerbaijani toxum 'seed (botanic); sperm; posterity' and tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' have been borrowed from Iranian languages; the former is a Persian loanword (Persian tuxm 'seed; sperm; egg'), the latter is more recent, originating from Judeo-Tat, Muslim Tat tum 'seed (botanic)' or Talysh tüm 'seed (botanic); seedling; clan, kin' (note that in Northern Talysh the sound ü has a free variant u, thus it is not difficult to deduce Azerbaijani tum from Talysh). It is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 325] that the shape tum emerged as an inner Azerbaijani contraction of toxum, but such a solution is ad hoc;
2) Lezgian words for 'seed' of the shape tum originate from Azerbaijani tum 'seed (botanic); posterity' or directly from modern Iranian tum 'seed (botanic)';
3) Udi tum 'root (botanic); lineage, kin, clan; bottom' originates from the same source, although the semantic shift 'seed' > 'root' is an internal Udi innovation. The new Udi word for 'seed', cil, has been developed from the term for 'stone of fruit'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular except for the tense nː in Archi (which could be the result of secondary morphological reanalysis).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root in Proto-Lezgian, but a deverbative in Proto-North Caucasian (the starting point is the verb 'to sow'). The oblique stem is not reconstructible.
Gukasyan 1974: 48; Mobili 2010: 33. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. There exists also the syncopated masdar arstːun {арстIун} [Gukasyan 1974: 47; Mobili 2010: 33; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], which originates from *arc-sun with the regular development Cc-s > Cstː (see [Maisak 2008a: 151 f.]).
Gukasyan 1974: 48; Fähnrich 1999: 6; Dirr 1903: 55, 59, 60, 69, 71, 90; Schiefner 1863: 76; Schulze 2001: 249; Starchevskiy 1891: 488. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *arc-esun. As is accepted in [NCED: 282] (now followed by [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44]), the medial -r- in *arc- is to be interpreted as a fossilized durative/iterative infix infiltrated into the original root *ac-. Caucasian Albanian data confirm this analysis.
In [Schulze 2001: 249], the stem arc- is unlikely analyzed as *ar- 'to come (the past tense)' + *c 'to sit' (i.e. 'to sit' < *'he came and sat down'), based on an incorrect analysis of the Nidzh masdar arstːun (< *ar-d-sun, according to Schulze, but in fact regularly from *arc-sun, see above).
Caucasian Albanian: A synchronically suppletive paradigm: arec-a- (present) / ac-ar- (past) 'to sit / to sit down' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-7]. The element -r(e)- in the present stem is a durative/iterative infix, the suffix -ar- is the past stem of the light verb -ar- 'came', see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-44].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 303; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560; Mikailov 1967: 97; Dirr 1908: 175, 221. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down / to stay, remain / to live (in general)'. Synchronically, a very irregular paradigm [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243], although all the variety of forms apparently originates from one archaic root.
As plausibly proposed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74 fn. 52], can be analyzed as the relict preverb qʼa 'down' (cf. the adverb qʼˈa-tːu 'down there' etc.) plus the verb ˈoqʼi- *'to sit', which lost its generic semantics in Modern Archi and narrowed its original meaning to 'to get onto a horse; to ripen' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 288]. Alternatively and less likely it is possible to treat qʼˈeˤyqʼi- as a reduplicated formation from the same verb ˈoqʼi-, thus [NCED: 648].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87; Saadiev 1994: 431, 434; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560. Initial äs= is apparently a fossilized rare spatial preverb. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Distinct, however, from paronymous qː=uqʼn- 'to sit down' [Saadiev 1994: 433] with the preverb qː= 'above, down'.
Authier 2009: 408. Paradigm: as=qʼʷan- [imperf.] / as=qʼʷa- [perf.]. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. It must be noted that in the Alyk verb the secondary suffix -n- is still restricted to the imperfective stem, whereas in Kryts proper it spread across the paradigm.
Meylanova 1984: 19; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Ablaut paradigm: a-l-qʼol- [imperf.] / aqʼul- [perf.] with the durative infix -l- in imperfective.
Both sources quote this verb as 'sit down', but the stative meaning 'to sit' is proved by textual examples, e.g., [Meylanova 1984: 95 sub qʼanik; Talibov 2007: 79], etc. Also glossed as stative 'to sit' in [Meylanova 1984: 197; Talibov 2007: 229].
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], 'to sit' is glossed as gišeǯi {гишеджи}, which in fact is the aorist form qːiše-ǯi {къишеджи} from the verb qː=iše- ~ qː=iši- 'to get onto a horse; to get on smth.' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88; Meylanova 1984: 89]. Apparently Comrie & Khalilov's gišeǯi 'to sit' is a mechanical citation of {Gišeǯi} - the first form quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 88] in the list of Budukh forms sub 'to get onto a horse' (actually, initial {G-} denotes qː- in Kibrik & Kodzasov's transcriptions).
Distinct from the rare verb gʸ=iχ- {гихас} 'to sit down' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 874; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 119] (the only example found: "The eagle sat down on the rock" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 119]) and the frequent ilʸ=eχ- {алихас} 'to get on (horse, motorcycle); to fly (q.v.)' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 869; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 38].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229, 389; Ibragimov 1978: 194. Paradigm: s=iqʼ-u-r- [imperf., perf.] / s=iqʼ-as [inf.] / s=iqʼ-ä [imv.]. It should be noted that in [Ibragimov 1978: 194], an archaic infinitive form s=iqʼʷ-as with -qʼʷ- is quoted. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 560], erroneously quoted as s=uqʼ- {сукьун}. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Paradigm: s=i=r=qʼʷ-a-r- [imperf.] / s=iqʼ-u-r- [perf.] / s=iqʼʷ [imv.]. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. This verb is quoted with the meaning 'to sit down' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], but the lexical opposition 'to sit' : 'to sit down' is atypical for this region, thus we assume the aforementioned polysemy for Luchek s=iqʼʷ-.
RUT_NOTES:
Note the secondary loss of labialization of qʼʷ in the Modern Mukhad and Ixrek paradigms, due to analogical levelling after the regular perfective form s=iqʼ--u-.
Initial s= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1978: 95; Alekseev 1994a: 227; Makhmudova 2001: 165].
Suleymanov 2003: 217; Shaumyan 1941: 142. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Infixed imperfective stem: e-r-qʼʷ-a-.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug iqʼʷ-a-, Khpyuk uqʼ-a- 'to sit' [Suleymanov 1993: 138; Shaumyan 1941: 142].
AGX_NOTES:
Note the rare case of retention of the Lezgian imperfective infix -r- in the Gequn and Proper Aghul imperfective stem V-r-qʼʷ-a- (cf. [Suleymanov 1993: 138 f.]).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: d=ˈeʔ- 'to sit, sit down' [Uslar 1979: 665, 1005; Dirr 1905: 164, 242]. Cf. the class 2 form d=ˈepʼ- < *d=e-b-ʔ-. The Khanag prefixless verb ˈeʔ- possesses a more specific meaning: 'to sit in smth., sit down in smth. (e.g., in cart, boat, nest)' [Uslar 1979: 684]. Distinct from Khanag d=ˈus-, glossed as 'to stand (said of thing) / to squat, sit squatting (said of human) / to sit (said of bird)' in [Dirr 1905: 165], as 'to kneel / to stand (said of thing or animal)' in [Uslar 1979: 672].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: d=ˈeʔ- ~ d=ˈey- {депIюв, деюв} 'to sit' [Genko 2005: 59]. Distinct from Khyuryuk d=ˈus- {дубсув} 'to kneel' [Genko 2005: 61].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 87. Two Kondik verbs are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] as synonyms for 'to sit down': č=ˈeʔ- and d=ˈus-, the difference is not explicated. Apparently d=ˈus- means specifically 'to sit down', whereas č=ˈeʔ- possesses a more generic meaning, see Common Tabasaran notes.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: č=ˈe- ~ čː=ˈe- {чеуб, ччеуб} 'to sit, sit down' [Genko 2005: 180]. Cf. another verb with a more specific meaning in the Eteg subdialect: d=ˈus- {дусуб} 'to sit down' [Genko 2005: 63].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: d=ˈe- {деуб} 'to sit, sit down' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 146, also 52 sub aywan, 249 sub parta, etc.]. Distinct from literary d=ˈus- {дубсуб} with polysemy: 'to stand smth. vertically (e.g., pole) / to squat down / to sit down (dialectal)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 150].
TAB_NOTES:
We presume that Tabasaran verbs which are quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988] for the concept 'to sit down' actually possess polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down', although it is very likely that Kibrik & Kodzasov's Kondik d=ˈus- means only 'to sit down', as proven by data from other Southern subdialects.
Uslar 1896: 329, 634. Polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down'. Initial az= is a spatial prefix.
The same in Literary Lezgi: acː=ˈuqʼ- {ацукьун} 'to sit / to sit down' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 54; Gadzhiev 1950: 764, 766; Haspelmath 1993: 479, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 98].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqʼʷä-2
NCED: 647. Distribution: Retained as the basic root for 'to sit, to sit down' in Archi, on the one hand, and in most Nuclear Lezgian lects, on the other. This root was lost in Udi and Tsakhur, whereas in Tabasaran, it survived as Khiv utʼ=uqʼ- 'to squeeze in(to); to prop up' [Genko 2005: 157], Literary utʼ=uqʼ- 'to stick in, sink in' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 300].
In Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the root for 'to sit / to sit down' is ac-. As proposed in [NCED: 281], this form originates from *ʔosːV-, which is also attested in Tabasaran as d=ˈus- 'to squat (down), sit squatting; to sit down; to kneel'. For the sporadic affricate reflexes of the Proto-Lezgian tense fricatives in Udi see [NCED: 146]; Tabasaran lax s is, however, irregular in any case (the expected Northern Tabasaran reflex of *sː is sː). Such phonetic deviations, together with scant attestation of this root among Lezgian languages, makes the reconstruction of *ʔosːV- highly dubious. We prefer to regard Caucasian Albanian-Udi ac- and us- as unrelated forms, whose etymology is unclear.
In Tsakhur and Tabasaran, the old root for 'to sit' was superseded with *ʔeʔ(ʷ)Vr- [NCED: 409] - apparently an independent development in two individual Nuclear Lezgian languages. The exact original meaning of *ʔeʔ(ʷ)Vr- is unknown, because it seems lost in all other Lezgian lects; external North Caucasian comparison points to semantics of 'sitting' or similar states.
Replacements: {'to sit' > 'to stay, remain' > 'to live (in general)'} (Archi), {'to sit' > 'to squeeze in(to); to prop up'} (Khiv Tabasaran), {'to sit' > 'to stick in, sink in'} (Literary Tabasaran).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the -n and -l root extentions in Kryts and Budukh, respectively. The following Ablaut grades are attested in various languages: *ʔiqʼʷä- / *ʔäqʼʷä- / *ʔoqʼʷä-.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with polysemy: 'to sit / to sit down' (this polysemy is retained in all or almost all the lects).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 295, 363; Mikailov 1967: 202. Polysemy: 'human skin / peel (of fruit)'; in [Dirr 1908: 162] only with the meaning 'peel, shell, bark'; in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97] apparently only with the meaning 'peel' (but there are no terms for 'human skin' in [Dirr 1908] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]). Distinct from various terms for 'hide', see [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40 f.; Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 145, 160]. In the 19th century probably with polysemy: 'skin / bark / peel', see notes on 'bark'.
It has been proposed by S. A. Starostin that Archi qal was borrowed from Avar qːal 'peel, shell, bark', but this scenario requires additional investigation. In any case, the meaning shift 'peel, bark' > 'skin' seems to be an inner Archi development; therefore, we treat qal 'skin' as a full-fledged item.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41; NCED: 756. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of large cattle'. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177] 'skin, hide' is glossed as ʁič {гъич}, which is an incorrect spelling for ʕič {гIич} 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40; Dirr 1913: 150, 227. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of small cattle'.
Gelmets Tsakhur:qʼabɨχ {кьабых}6
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 177. Polysemy: 'bark (q.v.) / skin'. The word is borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark; shell', but it seems that the meaning 'skin' is an inner Gelmets development, therefore, we treat qʼabɨχ 'skin' as a full-fledged item (note that in principle the form is not very reliable, since it is attested only in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]).
Cf. ʁːekʷa 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40].
Dirr 1912: 157, 192; Ibragimov 1978: 186. Quoted as the generic term for 'skin' in [Dirr 1912] and [Ibragimov 1978: 186], although in [Ibragimov 1978: 143, 222] Mukhad liʔ is specified as 'hide' or 'hide of large cattle'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 166, 348; Ibragimov 1978: 197, 222. Polysemy: 'human skin / animal hide / water-skin' (note that in the main section of the dictionary [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006] qʼɨdiqʼ is glossed only as 'hide').
Luchek Rutul:
Not attested.
RUT_NOTES:
Muxrek dialect: both liʔ and qʼɨdɨqʼ are glossed as 'skin' without additional specifications [Ibragimov 1978: 186]; Shinaz dialect: läʔ 'hide' [Ibragimov 1978: 143]; Borch-Khnov dialect: liʔ 'skin' without additional specifications [Ibragimov 1978: 237, 239].
A poorly documented term; it is unclear how the Proto-Rutul word for 'skin' should be reconstructed.
Note the dissimilation qʼ- > qː- in Mukhad qːɨdɨqʼ.
Uslar 1979: 886, 995; Dirr 1905: 201, 231. This form is actually from the Khanag subdialect, not Dyubek. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide of small cattle or wolf'. The same in the Khyuryuk and Kumi subdialects: qʼirˈiqʼ {кьирикь} 'skin; hide of small cattle' [Genko 2005: 107].
The proper Dyubek term for 'human skin' is unknown; cf. Dyubek qʼiyˈiqʼ-i, which is glossed only as 'hide of small cattle' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40] and 'hide of ram' in [Genko 2005: 106] (erroneously quoted as qʼiyˈiqʼ by Genko).
Genko 2005: 163. This form is actually from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'human skin' is unknown. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide (of goat and wild animals)'. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χam {хам} 'human skin / hide (e.g., of donkey)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 313].
Distinct from Kondik ʁiǯˈiqʼ 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40], Tinit qʼidiqʼ 'skin (not specified), hide' [Genko 2005: 106] (quoted by Genko as qʼidiyaʔ {кьидияъ}, apparently a typo for {кьидикь}).
TAB_NOTES:
It is unclear how the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'human skin' should be reconstructed: qʼidiqʼ (Northern dialect qʼiriqʼ) or χam (Southern dialect).
Uslar 1896: 570, 614. Polysemy: 'human skin / hide (e.g., of goat, wolf)'. Distinct from qür 'epidermis (of animal or snake)' [Uslar 1896: 482], li 'hide of large cattle' [Uslar 1896: 499], tumˈaǯ 'dressed hide (of goat or ram)' [Uslar 1896: 555] (the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani tumaǯ 'morocco').
The same in Literary Lezgi: χam {хам} 'human skin / animal hide' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 340; Gadzhiev 1950: 294; Haspelmath 1993: 511, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 326]. Distinct from literary li {ли} 'hide of large cattle' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 224].
Cf. in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qciqʼ 'hide of small cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 40], liʔ 'hide of large cattle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 41].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: Various terms for 'human skin' normally display the polysemy 'human skin / a k. of animal hide' in attested Lezgian 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.
In a couple of cases, the synchronic meaning 'human skin' originates from 'bark'. Thus, in Gelmets Tsakhur, qʼabɨχ 'bark / skin' was borrowed from the Azerbaijani term for 'bark'; similarly, Archi qal 'human skin / peel (of a fruit) / bark' could theoretically be borrowed from the Avar term 'peel, bark'.
Ibragimov 1978: 114, 117. According to Ibragimov's glosses, this seems to be the generic term for both human and animal skin (polysemy: 'skin / water-skin'), although in [Dirr 1912: 165] qːɨdɨqʼ is translated as 'hide of ram'.
Dm. Ganenkov & T. Maisak, p.c.; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down / to sleep / to fall asleep'. For lexicographic and morphological information see notes on 'to lie'. According to the textual corpus of the UdiLang project (http://udilang.narod.ru/index.html), the verb 'to lie' is the most frequent and default expression for 'to sleep' in Modern Nidzh.
There also exists a specific archaic expression nepː-aχ-e-sun {непIахесун}, which is translated as 'to sleep, to fall asleep' in [Gukasyan 1974: 179; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235; Mobili 2010: 219]. However, according to T. Maisak (p.c.), the complex verb nepː-aχ-e-sun rather means 'to fall asleep', whereas for the stative meaning 'to sleep, be asleep' the lexicalized adverb nepː-aχ-, modified with personal exponents and other verbal clitics, is used as predicate.
Gukasyan 1974: 179; Dirr 1903: 20, 46; Schulze 2001: 302. Polysemy: 'to sleep / to fall asleep'. Glossed only as 'to fall asleep' in [Fähnrich 1999: 24; Schiefner 1863: 97; Starchevskiy 1891: 485]. The verb bas-kː-esun 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *nepː-aχ-person, *nepː-aχ-e-sun, containing the Nidzh-Vartashen noun nepː 'dream; sleeping' [Gukasyan 1974: 179] and the light verb -e- 'to become' [Schulze 2005: 562 ff. (3.4.2.2 #11 ff.); Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474]. As was plausibly proposed in [Schulze 2001: 302], -aχ is the dative-2 ending, modifying the noun nepː; Caucasian Albanian data support this solution. On the contrary, in [NCED: 273] -aχ- is interpreted as a verbal root, originating from the Proto-Lezgian verb *ʔaχär- 'to sleep'; such an analysis should currently be rejected. In any case, synchronically nepː is the main meaningful morpheme in this verbal stem.
Caucasian Albanian: nepʼ-aq bu-, literally 'to be (bu-) in sleeping (nepʼ-aq)', -aq is the dative-3 ending, modifying the noun nepʼ [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-32]. The verb bas-kʼ-esun 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 169; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 194, 382; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235; Dirr 1908: 129, 222. Formed with the perfective stem of the verb =ˈaχa- 'to lie' q.v. [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 102] and the light verb =ke- 'to become' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 100 ff.; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 78]. The literal meaning of ˈaχu-ke- is something like 'to become lying'. The plain verb =ˈaχa- 'to lie' can also be used in the meaning 'to sleep', see notes on 'to lie'. Pace [NCED: 264], =ˈaχa- 'to lie' and ˈaχu-ke- can hardly represent two etymologically different roots.
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 235. The future stem is ʁalʸ=ix-az; other forms are unknown.
TKR_NOTES:
The external Lezgian etymology suggests that Mishlesh qː=iːsan- reflects the Proto-Tsakhur verb 'to sleep', whereas the primary meaning of ʁilʸ=ex- (Mikik, Gelmets) was 'to lie, lie down (sg. subj.)'; afterwards, this verb underwent the areal isogloss of polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'.
Initial qː= and double ʁ=Vlʸ= are prefixes with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 125; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
The same in the Duldug subdialect: ʁ=arχ-a- 'to sleep' [Shaumyan 1941: 190] (apparently an error for ʁ=arx-a-).
Differently in the Tsirkhe subdialect: aχ-a- 'to sleep' [Shaumyan 1941: 190].
AGX_NOTES:
The prefixless verb aχ-a- is the likeliest Proto-Aghul term for 'to sleep' (retained in this meaning in Burshag Koshan, Gequn as well as the Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul), perhaps with polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep' (as in Burshag Koshan and Gequn). Other attested verbs for 'to sleep' are secondary prefixed formations on the basis of verbal roots for 'to fall'. Further see notes on 'to lie'.
The same root in the Khanag subdialect: aχ-ˈ 'to sleep' [Uslar 1979: 570, 1006; Dirr 1905: 155, 243]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aχ-ˈ {абхув, аххув} 'to sleep' [Genko 2005: 12] (tense χː {хх} is Genko's typo under the influence of the following entry).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: aχ-ˈ {ахуб} 'to sleep' [Genko 2005: 21]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: aχ-ˈ {абхув} 'to sleep' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 45].
TAB_NOTES:
Initial ɢaʔ(V)= (i.e. ɢa=ʔ(a)=), a= (i.e. ʔa=) are spatial prefixes.
The same in Literary Lezgi: k=su- [imperf.] / k=sa- [perf.] / k=sus [redupl. imv.] {ксун} 'to sleep; to fall asleep' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 164; Gadzhiev 1950: 806; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 526; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 365].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔasʷɨn- ~ *ʔasːʷɨn-1
NCED: 1037. Distribution: Retained in the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch and two Nuclear Lezgian languages: Tsakhur, Lezgi. Further see notes on 'to lie'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular; the root is poorly attested, therefore, the exact shape of the protoform cannot be reconstructed: the first vowel (*a?) and the sibilant tenseness are unclear. Note the fossilized class prefix b= in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
Distinct from mal {мал} 'few, a few' [Gukasyan 1974: 169; Mobili 2010: 205]; Gukasyan and Mobili gloss this as 'small; a few', although the Azerbaijani translation and examples cited point to the meaning 'few, a few' (in [Gukasyan 1974: 271], however, mal is quoted as a Nidzh counterpart of Vartashen kːicːi 'small'); glossed as 'few, a little' in [Schulze 2001: 296b]; glossed as 'wenig' in [Schiefner 1863: 104] (thus a Nidzh-Vartashen form); this cannot be a recent borrowing from Russian malɨy 'small', malo 'a few' because of the presence of Caucasian Albanian mal 'small'.
Distinct from the less generic term χuri ~ χuru {хури, хуру} 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' [Gukasyan 1974: 226; Mobili 2010: 152; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Distinct from marginal pːatːar {пIатIар} 'small, little; a few' [Gukasyan 1974: 192; Mobili 2010: 238] (application of this adjective is unknown) < Modern Georgian pʼatʼar-a 'small'.
Gukasyan 1974: 143, 271; Mobili 2010: 174; Fähnrich 1999: 20; Schiefner 1863: 82; Schulze 2001: 292. A close synonym is more rare (or archaic?) kːicːkːe [Fähnrich 1999: 20; Schiefner 1863: 83; Schulze 2001: 292].
In fact, there also exists the word micːikː 'small' [Fähnrich 1999: 23; Starchevskiy 1891: 493], which corresponds to the Nidzh term.
UDI_NOTES:
An unclear situation. Nidzh-Vartashen micːikː is etymologically obscure, whereas Vartashen kːicːi is compared to Lezgian and North Caucasian words for 'puppy' in [NCED: 692]. It is quite unclear, however, whether the semantic shift 'puppy' > 'small' is possible.
A different solution is proposed in [Schulze 2001: 292]. According to Schulze, Vartashen kːicːkːe was borrowed from Persian kuːčak 'small; young' (which, in fact, originates from a certain descendant of Turkic *kičük 'small'); afterwards, the final consonant of kːicːkːe was reanalyzed as the Iranian diminutive suffix -k and loped off; the word kːicːi emerged as a result of this transformation. First, it should be noted that, from a phonetic point of view, Azerbaijani kičik 'small' (< Proto-Turkic *kičük) could be a more appropriate source of borrowing of the Udi word (although the substitution Azerbaijani č > Udi cː seems illogical). Next, in the case of morphological re-analysis of a loanword, this process is normally based on the grammatical patterns of the target language; re-analysis according to the grammatical patterns of the source language is typologically quite rare. Furthermore, Schulze explains the Nidzh (in fact Nidzh-Vartashen) form micːikː as the second element of an unattested rhyming reduplication **kːicːikː-micːikː, which seems ad hoc. We prefer to treat both Nidzh-Vartashen micːikː and Vartashen kːicːi as unetymologizable formations of unknown origin.
Caucasian Albanian: A good candidate is mal [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-29], which is attested in the meaning 'a few' (Jo. 6.7 "Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient (mal) for them"), as temporary 'a little while' (Jo. 12.35, etc.), in the meaning 'young, junior' (Mt. 10.42 "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones (mal) a cup of cold water only", Mk. 15.40 "Mary the mother of James the Less (mal) and of Joses, and Salome") and in the following context, which is the most significant: Mt. 5.19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least (mal) commandments, and shall teach so, he shall be called the least (mal) in the kingdom of heaven". No other candidates for generic 'small' are known from the palimpsests.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 326, 366; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583; Mikailov 1967: 199; Dirr 1908: 185, 213. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], there is also a corrupted variant tʼi-dːu-class {тиддут}. Regular participle from the stative verb tʼi 'to be small'. Widely applicable.
Distinct from the less generic and less frequent term muqˤˈu '(to be) small in size, fine (Russian: мелкий)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 282].
Distinct from ħokʼˈo 'small' [Chumakina et al. 2007] and ħokʼˈo-tːu-class [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 243, 366; Chumakina et al. 2007] (both are apparently rare, at least the latter is considered a nursery word).
Authier 2009: 69, 71, 72, 204, 287, 298, 311, 393. Widely applicable. A close synonyms is sinkʼala [Authier 2009: 69, 119, 180, 356]. The semantic difference between two adjectives is unclear, but the former is less frequent according to examples in [Authier 2009].
Meylanova 1984: 109, 220; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583. Polysemy: 'small, little / a little, a few'.
Distinct from the less generic term gǝrmǝ {гарма} 'small in size (Russian: мелкий), fine' [Meylanova 1984: 35; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
The second, less generic and less frequent term is χuru-n ~ χoru-n 'shallow; small (in size); younger' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890] (not found in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010]; an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: kʼɨnʸɨ-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237]. Occasional assimilation < *kʼɨlʸɨ-n. Distinct from the less generic term χuru-n, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Dirr 1913: 178, 229. Polysemy: 'small / younger / a few'. Cf. examples for the meaning 'small': "There is a flowing small spring" [Dirr 1913: 20], "small garden" [Dirr 1913: 25], "The young one must keep silent, when elders speak" [Dirr 1913: 32], "small man, small woman, small horse, small house" [Dirr 1913: 178], "Your small village is very small" [Dirr 1913: 210].
Distinct from the less generic term χuru-n, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] (an Azerbaijani loanword?). According to the data in [Dirr 1913], χuru-n is an infrequent term, and the two attested examples point to the meaning 'young' rather than 'small': "small/young snakes" [Dirr 1913: 127, 130], "Children of my friends are still young/little" [Dirr 1913: 212].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Magometov 1970: 170. In [Suleymanov 2003: 42], however, this Burshag adjective is quoted as wicʼi-r.
Cf. the forms from other subdialects: Arsug ucʼi-d 'small' [Magometov 1970: 231 sentences 2, 19], Khudig acʼi-d 'small' [Magometov 1970: 48] (both forms are also quoted in [Suleymanov 2003: 42] without subdialectal specification).
In [Shaumyan 1941: 155], Burshag, Arsug and Khudig words for 'small' are quoted as ucʼi-r, ucʼi-d, but this seems to be an inaccuracy.
Suleymanov 2003: 42; Shaumyan 1941: 155. Polysemy: 'small / younger'. The same in the Duldug and Kurag subdialects: bicʼi-f 'small' [Shaumyan 1941: 155; Magometov 1970: 49].
Note the form in the Tsirkhe subdialect: icʼi-f 'small' [Magometov 1970: 214 sentence 18; Shaumyan 1941: 155].
AGX_NOTES:
The relationship between forms with b- (the bulk of the dialects) and without b- (all Koshan subdialects and the neighboring Tsirkhe subdialect of Proper Aghul) is unclear. The inconsistency of the forms in three Koshan subdialects is also rather suspicious.
Nevertheless, all the aforementioned forms are most probably related. It is possible that b- is an old fossilized class exponent, absent in Koshan, cf. [NCED: 287].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Genko 2005: 30. The variant with lax -čʼʷ- is from [Genko 2005].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: bicʼˈi with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Uslar 1979: 615, 997; Dirr 1905: 158, 233]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Genko 2005: 30].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Genko 2005: 30]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: bicʼˈi {бицIи} with polysemy: 'small / younger' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 87].
TAB_NOTES:
Labialization of the Dyubek affricate čʼːʷ ~ čʼʷ is etymologically unclear.
Uslar 1896: 384, 616. Polysemy: 'small / younger'. Distinct from the less generic Gyune term kːülˈü 'small in size, fine (Russian: мелкий)' [Uslar 1896: 456].
The same in Literary Lezgi: ʁʷečʼˈi {гъвечIи} 'small / younger' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 93; Gadzhiev 1950: 345; Haspelmath 1993: 490, 526]. This is the most generic and frequent term for 'small' in the literary language. Distinct from bicʼˈi {бицIи} 'small, tiny' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 66; Haspelmath 1993: 483] (may actually be a borrowing from Aghul-Tabasaran bicʼi 'small' q.v.) and kːülˈü {куьлуь} 'small, tiny' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 169; Haspelmath 1993: 495].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut ʁʷačːˈi 'small' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237]. Distinct from the less generic Khlyut term čːülˈü, glossed as 'small in size (Russian: мелкий)' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].
Proto-Lezgian:*kʼɨʔʷV6
NCED: 726. Distribution: This word is very unstable. The Proto-Lezgian terms cannot be reconstructed with certainty. Cf. the following roots attested in individual languages with the meaning 'small'.
*kʼɨʔʷV- [NCED: 726]: this root means 'small' in Rutul and probably in Tsakhur, if Tsakhur kʼɨlʸi- is indeed to be analyzed as suffixed kʼɨ-lʸi- (not a productive pattern). It is proposed in [NCED] to compare *kʼɨʔʷV- with the Archi nursery word ħokʼo 'small' via metathesis, but the Archi reflex of the laryngeal is quite irregular (the expected Archi form should be **hokʼo). Cf. also the Budukh adverb kʼibe-kʼibe 'a bit' [Meylanova 1984: 98] (if to be analyzed as suffixed kʼi-be).
*tʼi- [NCED: 1001]: the Archi stative verb 'to be small', it is also attested in Lezgi as the adverb tʼi-mil 'a few'. As proposed in [NCED], the Nidzh Udi form tːilin with the presumable meaning 'small', attested in the expression tːilin kːäšä 'little finger' [Gukasyan 1974: 209] ('little finger' is normally expressed as 'small' + 'finger' among the Lezgian languages), might contain the same root *tʼi-. This could be decisive evidence for the reconstruction of Proto-Lezgian *tʼi- 'small', but the morphological analysis of the Udi form as tːi-li-n with a double suffix does not seem reliable (the suffix -li- is very rare, if it exists at all). Synchronically, Udi tːilin kːäšä looks like a genitive compound 'finger (kːäšä) of tːil' (for this morphological pattern see [Schulze 2005: 131 (3.2.2.3 #5)]). The meaning of the hypothetical tːil is, however, unclear; it cannot be a cognate of Proto-Nuclear Lezgian *tʼɨl (~ -o-) 'finger' [NCED: 1002], because the Udi form is expected to be **tːul in such a case.
*sːɨlä- [NCED: 963]: means 'small' in Kryts; its Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'light (in weight)'.
*mikʼʷV- (~ -e-) [NCED: 821]: means 'small' in Budukh; its Proto-Lezgian meaning could be 'young' (as suggested by the Rutul cognate and external North Caucasian comparanda).
The Aghul and Tabasaran terms for 'small' go back to *pːacʼV-y [NCED: 287], whose original meaning could indeed have been 'goatling' or 'small sheep' (retained in Lezgi, Rutul, Tsakhur). Thus, the development 'goatling' > 'small' is to be postulated for Aghul-Tabasaran (it should be noted that the Koshan Aghul forms without the initial labial are inexplicable).
In Udi and Caucasian Albanian, etymologically unclear terms micːikː, kːicːi, mal are attested in the meaning 'small'. Vartashen Udi kːicːi 'small' is compared to Proto-Lezgian *kicʼ / *cʼik in [NCED: 692], whose original meaning was 'puppy'; the shift 'puppy' > 'small' could be the same as in Aghul-Tabasaran ('goatling' > 'small').
In Lezgi, the etymologically unclear form ʁʷačʼi 'small' is attested.
Tentatively, we choose *kʼɨʔʷV as the Proto-Lezgian stem for 'small'.
Replacements: {'light (in weight)' > 'small'} (Kryts), {'puppy' > 'small'(?)} (Vartashen Udi), {'goatling' > 'small'(?)} (Aghul, Tabasaran). Reconstruction shape: Metathesis and the pharyngeal fricative in the Archi nursery word are irregular. Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be small'.
Common Udi *kːuin. In [Schulze 2001: 293] analyzed as a qualifying genitive kːui-n from an unattested noun/adjective **kːu(i) '?'; the explanation is ad hoc and etymologically unnecessary.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 241, 358; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 64; Mikailov 1967: 179; Dirr 1908: 151, 208. Paradigm: huqʼ [abs.] / huqʼ-rˈa [obl.]. The morphophonological nature of the final uvular is unclear: either weak qʼ or tense qʼː. In [Kibrik et al. 1977b] this is explicitly analyzed as weak qʼ, although in [NCED: 251] a diagnostic form with an enclitic is quoted, which confirms the tenseness of qʼː, but without references.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: kum 'smoke' [Uslar 1979: 787, 993; Dirr 1905: 185, 228]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kum {кум} 'smoke' [Genko 2005: 89].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: kum {кум} 'smoke' [Genko 2005: 89]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: kum {кум} 'smoke' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 203].
The same in Literary Lezgi: gum {гум} 'smoke' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 88; Gadzhiev 1950: 191; Haspelmath 1993: 489, 526].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut gɨm 'smoke' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207].
Proto-Lezgian:*kːunː1
NCED: 738. Distribution: There are three different Lezgian roots for 'smoke' in the three main branches: Udi, Archi and Nuclear Lezgian. From the distributional point of view, these are equal candidates, but the Udi root possesses reliable North Caucasian comparanda with the same basic meaning, thus, *kːunː can be safely posited as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'smoke'. The vocalic development in Udi (kːuin) is indeed somewhat strange, but this can hardly discredit the proposed etymology. Lezgian *kːunː shifted to the meaning 'dust' in Archi, (gun) having been lost in Nuclear Lezgian.
In Archi, the meaning 'smoke' is expressed with *ʔʷɨqʼː [NCED: 251], an isolated form within Lezgian, but with external North Caucasian comparanda in the meaning 'fumes, stink'.
In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *kːunː was superseded with *ƛuma (~ *ƛʷi-) [NCED: 590], which is retained with the meaning 'smoke' in all Nuclear Lezgian lects. Its original Proto-Lezgian meaning cannot be established, because it was lost in Udi and Archi, but external North Caucasian comparison suggests semantics of 'wind' or 'air'.
Replacements: {'smoke' > 'dust'} (Archi).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the Udi diphthong.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.
Fähnrich 1999: 12; Dirr 1903: 49; Schiefner 1863: 88; Starchevskiy 1891: 489. Schulze [Schulze 2001: 266, 267] incorrectly treats čur-p-esun as causative 'to make stand' and čur-d-esun as intransitive stative 'to stand', although the situation in the texts from [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] is exactly inverse.
Distinct from ayz-esun {айзесун} 'to stand up' [Gukasyan 1974: 38; Fähnrich 1999: 6].
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *čur-p-esun; formed with thelight verb -p- 'to say, to do smth. with the mouth; to do smth. (in general)' [Schulze 2005: 565 ff. (3.4.2.2 #15 ff.); Harris 2002: 204 ff.]. Apparently related to čur-e-sun 'to walk' (see notes on 'to go'), but semantic details are uncertain.
Caucasian Albanian: bur-esun with polysemy 'to stand (of humans, things) / to be at hand / to be, remain / to remain, stay / to dwell' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12]. As plausibly analyzed in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-45, IV-12], this is a secondary verb based on the nominal form buri 'having come to be' (< *bu-ar-i), a stative past participle from the generic verb bu- 'to be' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 287, 383; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 239; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561; Dirr 1908: 172, 222. In [NCED: 1025] erroneously quoted as =ocːi-. Polysemy: 'to stand (animated subj.) / to stop moving / to cultivate land'.
Distinct from the nursery word ʁˈetʼ-bo- 'to stand' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 311, 383; Chumakina et al. 2007] (complex verb, formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say').
Distinct from =χːˈa- 'to stand up; to grow; to be in heat (of animals)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 85; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 337, 354] and yˈatːi =χːa- 'to stand up' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 254, 354] (yˈatːi 'up').
Meylanova 1984: 82; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86. Ablaut paradigm: qː=a-l-tʼǝl- [imperf.] / qː=etʼil- [perf., imv.]; qː= is the preverb 'out' [Alekseev 1994: 271], -l- is the imperfective infix. Polysemy: 'to stand (animated subj.) / to stop moving'.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561], 'to stand' is incorrectly glossed as the analytic form aʁmi yixar {агъми йихьар}, which, in fact, means 'to stand face to face, to say smth. right to smb.'s face' [Meylanova 1984: 16].
Distinct from qː=uzar- [imperf.] / qː=uzur- [perf.] 'to stand up' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 85; Meylanova 1984: 91, 208].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 878; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 179; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 561. Ablaut paradigm: ilʸ=o-y-zar ~ ilʸ=o-y-zʷar [imperf.] / ilʸ=ozur [perf.] / ilʸ=ozar-as [fut.]. Polysemy: 'to stand (animated & inanimate subj.) / to stand up / to stop moving'; for the stative meaning cf. examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 107; Kibrik et al. 1999: 117; Kibrik et al. 1999: 302], etc. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], the form is quoted with an error.
Distinct from Mikik ozaq-Vx- 'to stand up' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 85] (the second element could be the auxiliary verb eːxe- [imperf.] / ɨxa- [perf.] 'to become' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 62]).
Labialized -zʷ- is still retained in some forms in the Mishlesh dialect, namely, imperf. class 2 ilʸ-e-y-zʷar ~ ilʸ-eː-zʷar [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 179; Kibrik et al. 1999: 878], fut. class 2 ~ ilʸ-eː-zʷar-as [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878], but in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 179] the latter form is already delabialized: ilʸ-e-y-zar-as. In Mikik the delabialized -z- was totally levelled under the influence of the frequent forms with the regular development oCʷ > oC, bCʷ > bC.
Initial Vlʸ= is a prefix with general semantics [Ibragimov 1990: 123; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86; Suleymanov 2003: 55. Distinct from Burshag ʁ=azʷ-a- 'to stand up' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 85], although both synchronic roots are apparently related etymologically.
The same in the Khudig subdialect: a=H=z-a- 'to stand' [Shaumyan 1941: 191].
Suleymanov 2003: 55; Shaumyan 1941: 191. Infixed imperfective stem: ʁ=u-r-z-an-. Polysemy: 'to stand / to stand up / to stop moving'.
AGX_NOTES:
Initial a= (< ʔa=), ʁ= and ʢ= are spatial prefixes [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.].
Note a rare case of retention of the Lezgian imperfective infix -r- in the Gequn and Proper Aghul imperfective stem ʁ=u-r-z-a- (cf. [Suleymanov 1993: 138 f.]).
The same in the Kumi subdialect: di=yiqː-ˈ {дийикъув} 'to stand' [Genko 2005: 60].
A different pattern in the Khanag subdialect: di=ʁ=iǯʷ-ˈ [imperf.] / du=ʁ=uǯʷ-ˈ [perf., inf.] with polysemy: 'to stand / to stand up / to stay at rest' [Uslar 1979: 673, 1007; Dirr 1905: 164, 243]. The change u > i in the imperfective stem is synchronically regular, see [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 34 f.] for the same ablaut in Dyubek.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: di=ʁ=iǯʷ-ˈ [imperf.] / du=ʁ=uǯʷ-ˈ [perf.] {дугъубжъув} with polysemy: 'to stand / to stay at rest' [Genko 2005: 61].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 86. Distinct from Kondik ʁu=d=uǯʷ-ˈ 'to stand up' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 85].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: di=yiʁ-ˈ {дийибгъуб} 'to stand; to stop moving' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 147].
Differently in the Khiv subdialects: ʁu=d=uǯʷ-ˈ {гъудужъуб} 'to stand; to stand up' [Genko 2005: 44]. Cf. Khiv du=ʁ=uǯʷ-ˈ {дугъужъуб} 'to stop moving' [Genko 2005: 61].
TAB_NOTES:
Initial d(V)=, ɢ(V)=/ʁ(V)= are spatial prefix.
Formally, it is possible to reconstruct the Proto-Tabasaran opposition =ʔiɢ- (=yiʁ-) 'to stand' / =iǯʷ- (=uǯʷ-) 'to stand up' (retained in Dyubek and Kondik, but secondarily lost in favor of the latter root in most of the other dialects). External Lezgian comparison suggests, however, that =iǯʷ- (=uǯʷ-) should be rather reconstructed with Proto-Tabasaran polysemy 'to stand / to stand up'; if so, Dyubek and Kondik =ʔiɢ- (=yiʁ-) 'to stand' is a late introduction.
Uslar 1896: 334. Polysemy: 'to stand (normally applied to the animated subject) / to stop moving / to stay at rest'. Distinct from Gyune qː=arˈaʁ- 'to stand up' [Uslar 1896: 487, 607].
The same in Literary Lezgi: aqːʷ=ˈaz- {акъвазун} with polysemy: 'to stand (applied to the animated subject) / to stop moving / to stay at rest' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 38; Gadzhiev 1950: 822; Haspelmath 1993: 481, 527; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 58]. Distinct from literary qː=arˈaʁ- {къарагъун} 'to stand up' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 180; Gadzhiev 1950: 111; Haspelmath 1993: 501; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 394].
For the phonetics cf. Migrakh (subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect < Samur group) q=ucː(ˈV)- 'to stand' [Meylanova 1964: 258], Khuryug (subdialect of the Akhty dialect < Samur group) q=ucː(V)- 'to stand' [Meylanova 1964: 315].
Initial aqːʷ=, qː=, q= are old spatial prefixes.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔecːʷär-2
NCED: 1025. Distribution: As opposed to 'to lie' q.v. or 'to sit' q.v., where the stative meaning 'to lie' ('to sit') is normally expressed with the same verb as the active 'to lie down' ('to sit down'), the meanings 'to stand' and 'to stand up' appear to be rather frequently distinguished through lexical means among Lezgian languages.
Nevertheless, the Proto-Lezgian root *ʔecːʷär- [NCED: 1025] can be assuredly reconstructed with polysemy: 'to stand / to stand up'. Actually, the isogloss of lexical discrimination between the two meanings seems to be a recent areal innovation among Lezgian languages, because newly introduced verbs with the specific meaning 'to stand' or 'to stand up' almost never coincide between languages.
The root *ʔecːʷär- [NCED: 1025] is retained with polysemy 'to stand / to stand up' in some Nuclear Lezgian languages: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), Aghul and perhaps in Proto-Tabasaran (although the latter is not certain). In one of the outliers - Archi - as well as in Lezgi, the original meaning was narrowed to 'to stand'. On the contrary, *ʔecːʷär- was narrowed to 'to stand up' in the second outlier - Udi - and in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). Similarly, the best formal solution for Proto-Tabasaran would be to reconstruct *ʔecːʷär- with the narrow meaning 'to stand up'.
The new verbs for 'to stand' are:
1) *ʔVtʼVl-, attested in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) as 'to stand', lacking further etymology;
2) in Udi, the etymologically obscure root čur- is used for the verb 'to stand' (formally the same root as in the Udi verb 'to walk');
3) in Caucasian Albanian, 'to stand' is derived from the generic verb 'to be'.
The new verbs for 'to stand up' are:
1) *ʔiχːa- [NCED: 575]; this root means 'to stand up' in Luchek Rutul (theoretically, such a meaning could be reconstructed for Proto-Rutul) and in one of the outliers - Archi. The root *ʔiχːa- was lost in the rest of Lezgian lects, so its Proto-Lezgian meaning is not reconstructible. Formally, the match between Archi and Rutul could yield the Proto-Lezgian root for 'to stand up', but we consider the available data too scant for such a reconstruction. Apparently Archi and Luchek Rutul represent independent innovations;
2) *yaqːV- [NCED: 275], attested as 'to stand up' in some Tabasaran dialects (formally this should be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran verb 'to stand up'); the original Lezgian meaning of *yaqːV- was '(to be) high';
3) Etymologically, not entirely clear are Mikik Tsakhur ozaq-Vx- 'to stand up' and Lezgi qː=arˈaʁ- 'to stand up'.
Both attested forms (Nidzh mučːˤuli and Vartashen qabun) are obscure morphologically and isolated etymologically. Caucasian Albanian data suggest that they must be relatively recent innovations.
In [Schulze 2001: 299] it is tentatively proposed to derive mučːˤuli from the Udi substantive mi 'cold, frost' ('star' as 'cold (light)'), but this is problematic from the morphologic point of view and seems impossible typologically.
In [Schulze 2001: 309] qabun is ad hoc segmented as qa-b-un and connected to the basic Lezgian term for 'star': *χːˤanːa [LEDb], which is impossible phonetically.
Caucasian Albanian: χalʸum [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22]. The final -m looks like a fossilized plural exponent. This term probably continues Proto-Lezgian *χːˤanːa 'star'. It must be noted that the l-like value of sign #22 (currently transliterated as lʸ) is established with relative assurance, see [Gippert et al. 2008: II-13]. The development of Lezgian *nː > Caucasian Albanian lʸ is somewhat surprising (note that Lezgian *nː > Udi n), although not impossible.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 340, 360; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 53; Mikailov 1967: 202; Dirr 1908: 190, 209. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant with initial χˤ- is also quoted. The first element is adverbial χːˤolˈo-š 'from above, from the sky' (-š is the elative ending).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198. In [Meylanova 1984: 40, 214] this word is quoted as hačʼ {гьачI} - apparently an error (repeated in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 53]).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: χːˤar 'star' [Uslar 1979: 956, 994; Dirr 1905: 216, 229]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk χːˤar {ххяр}, Chuvek χaǯ {хажж} 'star' [Genko 2005: 162, 168].
The same in other subdialect: Khiv χˤaǯ {хежж, хяжж}, Turag χˤad {хяд} 'star' [Genko 2005: 164, 168]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χˤad {хяд} 'star' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 319].
Differently in two subdialects of the Eteg cluster: Tinit, Dzhikhtig čʼiz {чIиз} 'star' [Genko 2005: 186].
The same in Literary Lezgi: ʁed [abs.] / ʁetː-rˈe- [obl.] / ʁetː-ˈer [pl.] {гъед} 'star' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 93; Gadzhiev 1950: 243; Haspelmath 1993: 490, 527].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut χäd [abs.] / χäd-rˈa- [obl.] / χätː-ˈar [pl.] 'star' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 198].
Proto-Lezgian:*χːˤanːa ~ *χːˤanː3
LEDb: #97. Distribution: This stem is retained as the basic term for 'star' in all lects (apparently including Caucasian Albanian), except for Udi and some Tabasaran dialects.
In Udi, two etymologically obscure forms for 'star' occur: mučːˤuli, qabun. In Southern Tabasaran (Tinit, Dzhikhtig), 'star' is denoted with čʼiz, whose origin is likewise unclear.
The reconstruction of the Proto-Lezgian *χːˤanːa ~ *χːˤanː seems unproblematic, but the fact that *χːˤanːa ~ *χːˤanː lacks any external North Caucasian cognates is suspicious.
Actually, Proto-Lezgian *χːˤanːa ~ *χːˤanː looks like a derivative stem from the Proto-Lezgian substantive *χːˤanː 'fish' q.v. [NCED: 1078]. Cf. the data from two dialects, where both Proto-Lezgian terms survived: Shinaz Rutul χˤat (< *χˤad), Gyune Lezgi ʁed 'fish' vs. Common Rutul χˤad-ey, Gyune Lezgi ʁed 'star'.
Theoretically, it is possible to hypothesize a Proto-Lezgian mythologem, according to which stars are considered "sky fishes". The modern Archi complex expression for 'star' might be a clue to such a reconstruction: χːˤolˈoš-qˤan, literally 'qˤan from above / from the sky'. In modern Lezgian lects, 'fish' is a very unstable word (as opposed to 'star'); this could be explained as the result of later attempts to avoid the homonymy 'star' / 'fish' already after the myth of "sky fishes" had disappeared. If so, the data from Eteg Tabasaran are particularly interesting, because Eteg is the third dialect among Lezgian languages which retains the old term for 'fish' (Tinit, Dzhikhtig χˤad), but it is exactly in Eteg where the old term for 'star' has been superseded with the unclear word čʼiz.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for dissimilative qˤ (for expected χːˤ) in Archi and ejectivization of the final consonant in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh); note also the somewhat strange reflex *nː > lʸ in Caucasian Albanian. The direct stem with the final vowel *χːˤanːa (a rare nominal type) is reconstructed on the basis of the Tsakhur form χˤanʸe [NCED: 171]; on the other hand, Tsakhur may represent the same suffixal formation as Rutul χˤad-ey (with the loss of -y in Tsakhur).
Semantics and structure: Nominal stem, maybe of denominative nature. The oblique stem is *χːˤanːä-.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 214, 361; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 50; Mikailov 1967: 206; Dirr 1908: 195, 210. Glossed as 'middle-sized stone' in [Chumakina et al. 2007]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010], the word qʷˤen is also quoted as a synonym of čʼelˈe, although in fact qʷˤen means 'rock (i.e. cliff etc.)' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 300; Chumakina et al. 2007]; this is apparently due to an incorrect translation of the English entry title 'stone, rock' as Russian 'камень, скала', although rock is simply the modern American equivalent of stone.
Distinct from qʷan with polysemy 'large flat stone / large frying pan' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 298; Chumakina et al. 2007].
Distinct from a more specific term dahar 'big stone' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201] (ultimately of Persian origin, see notes on Alyk Kryts).
Alyk Kryts:dahar4
Authier 2009: 38, 173, 183, 216, 222, 258, 316, 326, etc. According to examples, with polysemy: 'stone in general or middle-sized / big stone, boulder / rock, cliff'. A Wanderwort attested in Lezgian (see individual notes on 'stone' and 'mountain'), Dargwa, Khinalugh, dialectal Azerbaijani etc. most commonly with the meaning 'big stone, rock, cliff'. Ultimately borrowed from Persian dahaːr 'grotto, cavern, cleft in a mountain' (the semantically closest form is Lezgi dahar 'cavern, deep cleft in a mountain'). Despite the foreign origin of the word, the meaning shift 'big stone, cliff' > 'stone in general' seems an independent inner Alyk development; therefore, we treat dahar 'stone' as a full-fledged Alyk item.
Meylanova 1984: 82, 216; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 50. A generic term. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gaya 'rock, cliff; big stone', dial. 'stone in general'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:qːaye {къае}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 875, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 208; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 50. According to [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], with polysemy: 'stone in general or middle-sized / big stone, boulder / rock, cliff'.
Dirr 1912: 135, 192, also 32, 119 sub a 'to be', 157 sub läʔ- 'to pick up', 168 sub ruʁu-d 'round', 171 sub sɨl-dɨ 'light in weight'; Ibragimov 1978: 43, 67, 118; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 50.
A second candidate is qːat {къат}, quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 118] as a synonym for duχul, but not observed in other sources.
A third candidate is cʼʷar, glossed as 'stone, small stone, gravel' in [Dirr 1912: 37, 179, 192], but, judging by Dirr's examples, this word seems more rare and marginal.
A second candidate is dahˤar {даIгьаIр} 'stone' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 95, 346] (with the only example: "large stones"), ultimately borrowed from Persian (see notes on Alyk Kryts). The difference between duχul and dahˤar is unclear; it is possible that dahˤar specifically denotes a large stone.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 50], several specific terms are incorrectly quoted as synonyms for generic 'stone'.
Luchek Rutul:dahar5
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201. A generic term, representing a Wanderwort of Persian origin (see notes on Alyk Kryts), although the meaning shift to 'stone in general' seems an independent inner Luchek development; therefore, we treat dahar 'stone' as a full-fledged Luchek item.
Distinct from inherited duχul 'small stone' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201] and qːat 'pebble' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 202].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qːan 'stone (in general)' [Uslar 1979: 818, 995]; note, however, that in [Dirr 1905: 186, 230] Khanag qːan is quoted only in the expression niqʼ-r-in qːan 'tombstone' (niqʼ 'tomb, grave'). According to [Dirr 1905: 161, 230], the generic Khanag term for 'stone' is ʁarʒ, which is glossed as 'rock, cliff' in [Uslar 1979: 651] - perhaps a natural semantic rebuilding during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr' records.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːan {къан} 'stone' [Genko 2005: 99]; distinct from Khyuryuk ʁarʒ {гъарзз} 'rock, cliff' [Genko 2005: 41].
The same in the Tinit subdialect: qːʷan {къоан} 'stone' [Genko 2005: 101] (phonetically rather a Northern Tabasaran form!).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁʷan {гъван} 'stone' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 110]; distinct from literary ʁarz {гъарз} 'rock, cliff' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 108].
Two terms for 'stone' are documented for the Khiv subdialect: ʁarz {гъарз} with polysemy: 'stone / rock, cliff / stony slope / precipice' [Genko 2005: 41] and ʁʷan {гъоан} 'stone' [Genko 2005: 43]. The difference is unknown.
TAB_NOTES:
*qːʷan can be safely reconstructed as the generic Proto-Tabasaran term for 'stone', although in some dialects this is currently being superseded by ʁarʒ / ʁarz 'rock, cliff'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: qːʷan {къван} 'stone' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 184; Gadzhiev 1950: 278; Haspelmath 1993: 503, 527].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːʷan 'stone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201]. Distinct from the Khlyut more specific term kertːʷeχ 'formless stone' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 201].
Proto-Lezgian:*qːʷan6
NCED: 490. Distribution: A rather unstable word. There are four candidates for the Proto-Lezgian term for 'stone', with more or less equal distribution:
1) *qːʷan [NCED: 490]. This is the generic term for 'stone' in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), but denotes 'large flat stone; large frying pan' in Archi (qʷan [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 298; Chumakina et al. 2007]). External North Caucasian comparanda point to the meanings 'flat stone' or 'large stone';
2) *χutː (~ *χː-) [NCED: 428]. This root denotes 'stone' in Kryts proper and Rutul (Rutul suffixed and metathesized duχ-ul), but 'rock, cliff' in Alyk Kryts. In [NCED: 428], Kryts proper χud-il 'tomb-stone' is also quoted (directly corresponds to Rutul duχ-ul 'stone'), but this Kryts form is not attested in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 191]. The root is not attested in the rest of Lezgian. Its external North Caucasian comparanda (if correct) point to the meaning 'grave, tomb';
3-4) in both of the outliers, etymologically obscure forms are attested: Udi-Caucasian Albanian žˤe (which implies Proto-Lezgian *č:en ~ -ä- ~ -nː) and Archi čʼelˈe.
Provisionally, we fill the Proto-Lezgian slot with *qːʷan.
It must be noted that in Tabasaran dialects, *qːʷan tends to be superseded with the form ʁarz in the meaning 'stone'; the Proto-Tabasaran meaning of ʁarz apparently was 'rock, cliff'.
In Alyk Kryts and Luchek Rutul, the Persian loanword dahar is attested with the late semantic development 'big stone, rock, cliff' > 'stone (in general)'.
In Budukh and Tsakhur, inherited terms were superseded with Azerbaijani loanwords.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: riqː 'sun' [Uslar 1979: 896, 1006] (in [Dirr 1905: 203, 242], quoted as reʁ 'sun' - either actually a form from some Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr's records).
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: riqː {рикъ} 'sun' [Genko 2005: 133].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: riʁ ~ reʁ {ригъ, регъ} 'sun' [Genko 2005: 132]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: riʁ {ригъ} 'sun' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 260].
The same in Literary Lezgi: raʁ [abs.] / raqː-ˈini- [obl.] {рагъ} 'sun' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 270; Gadzhiev 1950: 798; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 527].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut raʁ [abs.] / reqː-ˈina- [obl.] / raqː-ˈar [pl.] with polysemy: 'sun / sunny days (pl.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 197].
Proto-Lezgian:*wiraqː1
NCED: 1051. Distribution: One of the most stable lexical items, retained with the basic meaning 'sun' in all Lezgian lects. Proto-Lezgian *wiraqː possesses perfect North Caucasian comparanda, therefore, W. Schulze's analysis is not only ad hoc morphologically, but also unnecessary [Schulze 2001: 257].
Replacements: {'sun' > 'sunny day (pl.)'} (Akhty Lezgi).
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences are regular, although the original bisyllabic structure tends to be simplified in many languages.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem could be *wirɨqːV-.
NUMBER:83
WORD:swim
Nidzh Udi:üzmüš-sun {уьзмуьшсун}-1
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 479. Mophophonologically = üzmüš-b-sun with cluster simplification šbs > šs (see [Maisak 2008a: 148 f.]).
Vartashen Udi:üzmiš-b-esun-1
Schulze 2001: 330.
UDI_NOTES:
Borrowed from Azerbaijani üz-mäk (perfect stem üz-miš-) 'to swim', plus the Udi light verb -b- 'to do'.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 342, 373; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 479. A complex verb, consisting of ɬːan 'water' q.v. and the light verb -a- 'to do' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 100 ff.; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 78].
In [Dirr 1908: 188, 217] 'to swim' is quoted as {хwа-к̠}, which should be interpreted as something like χʷakʼ ~ χːʷakʼ - apparently the same verb as χːʷˈaːkʼa- 'to walk around looking for something' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 339; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 235; Chumakina et al. 2007].
Kryts (proper):üzmiš xi--1
LEDb. Borrowed from Azerbaijani üz-mäk (perfect stem üz-miš-) 'to swim', plus the Kryts verb xi- 'to become'.
Alyk Kryts:šina ar--1
G. Authier, pers. com. Borrowed from Iranian (ultimately to Persian šinā 'swimming'), plus the Alyk verb ar- 'to do'.
Budukh:üzmi yɨxǝ-r-i {уьзми йыхьари ~ йихьари}-1
Meylanova 1984: 25 sub batmi, 50 sub dayazǯa, etc. Applied to humans and swimming birds. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 479], quoted as üzmiš siʔi {уьзмиш сиъи}. Borrowed from Azerbaijani üz-mäk 'to swim' (the perfect stem üz-miš-, the substantive üz-mä), plus the Budukh verbs yɨxǝ- / sǝxǝ- 'to be(come)' or siʔi- 'to do'.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:yuzgʸi haʔ- {юзги гьаий}-1
Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 425. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 479], 'to swim' is quoted as huˤzmiš-x- {гьуIзмишхъес} - another borrowing from Azerbaijani. Not attested in [Kibrik et al. 1999].
Mikik Tsakhur:yüzmiš-x--1
Dirr 1913: 172, 233.
Gelmets Tsakhur:uzmiš-x--1
Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 479.
TKR_NOTES:
All of the forms represent borrowings from Azerbaijani. Usually it is the Azerbaijani perfect stem üz-miš- (infinitive üz-mäk) 'to swim' with the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become'. In Mishlesh the source is the Azerbaijani noun üz-gü 'being afloat' (from the same root üz- 'to swim') with the Tsakhur verb (h=)aʔ- 'to do'.
In all dialects, the meaning 'to swim' is expressed with the analytic construction xed 'water' + (h=)aʔ- (/ h=äqʼ-) 'to do'.
Koshan Aghul:sirnaw aqʼa--1
Suleymanov 2003: 148.
Keren Aghul:
Not attested. Cf. in the Usug subdialect: sarnaw qʼa- 'to swim' [Shaumyan 1941: 161].
Gequn Aghul:samah aqʼa- ~ sameh aqʼa--1
Dirr 1907: 141, 180; Shaumyan 1941: 161.
Fite Aghul:
Not attested.
Aghul (proper):salaw aqʼa--1
Suleymanov 2003: 148; Shaumyan 1941: 161.
AGX_NOTES:
Analytic constructions with the auxiliary verb (a)qʼ-a- 'to do' are found in all the dialects where the term is attested. Apparently, the nouns sirnaw, salaw, samah represent various corrupted transmissions of Iranian forms, cf. Persian šinaːw, šinaːh, šinaː 'swimming' (+ kardan 'to do' = 'to swim'), Talysh sinow 'swimming' (+ karde 'to do' = 'to swim').
Northern Tabasaran:čʼučʼurufˈan apʼ-2
Uslar 1979: 975. The expression actually stems from the Khanag subdialect; the proper Dyubek term for 'to swim' is unknown. Literally čʼučʼurufˈan 'swimming' + apʼ- 'to do'. This expression is applied to humans and animals, but not to fishes or boats.
For the Khyuryuk subdialect only the noun čʼučʼurufˈan {чIучIуруфан} 'swimming' is documented [Genko 2005: 187].
Southern Tabasaran:sirnˈaw apʼ- {сирнав апIуб}-1
Genko 2005: 139. This expression actually stems from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik term for 'to swim' is unknown. Literally 'swimming' + 'to do'.
Differently in the Tinit subdialect: lepˈe yeb- {лепе ебуб} 'to swim', literally 'wave' + 'to hit, beat' [Genko 2005: 114].
There also exists a more complex expression: lepˈe kːada-ˈuri ʁˤaʁ- {лепе ккадаури гъягъюб} 'to swim' [Genko 2005: 114], literally 'to go (ʁˤaʁ-), clearing away (kːada-) the wave (lepˈe)'; Genko's note is not quite certain, but apparently this is a Khiv form.
Two expressions are found in Literary Tabasaran: sirnˈaw apʼ- {сирнав апIуб} 'to swim', literally 'swimming' + 'to do' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 272]; lepˈe yiw- {лепе йивуб} 'to swim', literally 'wave' + 'to hit, beat' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 217].
TAB_NOTES:
The Proto-Tabasaran term is not reconstructible. Southern sirnaw 'swimming' is a phonetically corrupted transmission of the corresponding Iranian terms (see notes on Aghul); lepe 'wave' is ultimately borrowed from Azerbaijani läpä 'small wave'; the origin of Northern čʼučʼurufan is unclear - maybe an onomatopoeic word ('swimming' as 'splashing').
Gyune Lezgi:sirnˈaw--1
Uslar 1896: 549, 623. Historically a complex verb 'to do swimming', consisting of sirnˈaw 'swimming' (an Iranian loanword, see notes on Aghul) and eyˈi- / awˈu- 'to do'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: sirnˈaw awˈu- or compressed sirnˈaw- {сирнав авун, сирнавун} 'to swim' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 294; Gadzhiev 1950: 539; Haspelmath 1993: 527].
Proto-Lezgian:*ɬːänː ʔaʔa(r)-1
NCED: 1060. Distribution: Barely reconstructible. For the most part, only analytic expressions for 'to swim' are attested in Lezgian languages; the main element that carries the lexical meaning ('swimming' or, rarely, 'wave') represents an Azerbaijani or Iranian loan in most of the lects. Expressions for 'to swim' with non-borrowed elements are:
1) Archi analytic ɬːan-a- 'to do water';
2) Rutul analytic xed haʔ- 'to do water', an exact parallel to the complex verb in Archi;
3) the verb 'to walk around looking for something' in archaic Archi;
4) Northern Tabasaran čʼučʼurufan apʼ- 'to do čʼučʼurufan'; perhaps onomatopoeic.
We follow the formal Archi-Nuclear Lezgian (Rutul) match and reconstruct the virtual idiom *ɬːänː ʔaʔa(r)- 'to do (ʔaʔar-) water (*ɬːänː)' [NCED: 257, 1060] as the Proto-Lezgian expression for 'to swim', although it is very probable that Archi and Rutul formations represent late and independent introductions.
Replacements: {'to do water' > 'to swim'} (Archi, Rutul), {'to beat a wave' > 'to swim'} (Southern Tabasaran).
Authier 2009: 35, 39, 55, 350, 379. This is glossed as 'fatty tail' in [Authier 2009: 39], but simply as 'tail' in [Authier 2009: 35, 55]; examples confirm the generic status of ǯiy: "One who wants to get fish should put his tail (ǯiy) on ice" (a proverb) [Authier 2009: 350], "the point of the (bull calf) tail (ǯiy) is white" [Authier 2009: 379]. According to G. Authier’s pers. com., ǯiy is the default term for 'tail' in Alyk.
There exists another word for 'tail': qačʼ, quoted only once in [Authier 2009: 39]. According to G. Authier’s pers. com., this is a rare specific term, which denotes 'long, lean tail containing bones'. Alyk qačʼ resembles the basic Khinalugh term qʼaž [abs.] / qʼačʼ- [obl.] 'tail' (note that, first of all, the normal direction of borrowing is Lezgian > Khinalugh).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 870, 901; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 97. Applied both to beasts and birds. Paradigm: bɨˤtʸ [abs.] / bɨˤtːʸ- [obl.]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 183], the absolutive is quoted as bɨˤt {быIт}; note that this depalatalized variant is also attested in [Kibrik et al. 1999], e.g., [Kibrik et al. 1999: 822].
Distinct from ǯɨkʼrɨ 'tail of cloven-hoofed animal, horse's tail' (sic?) [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 161] and aˤrd 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк); fatty meat' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 62] (the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani ard 'back part of body'). Ibragimov & Nurmamedov's gloss 'tail of cloven-hoofed animal, horse's tail' for ǯɨkʼrɨ looks suspicious, because this word means 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк)' (a very different meaning) in Mikik and Gelmets, whereas in Mishlesh 'horse's tail' is denoted by generic bɨˤt(ʸ), see examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 822].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: bɨˤt [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26]. Distinct from aˤrd 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26] (borrowed from Azerbaijani ard 'back part of body').
Distinct from ǯɨkʼrɨ 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк); handle' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26; Dirr 1913: 158, 228] and from aˤrd 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26] (the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani ard 'back part of body').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 183], the modern depharyngealized variant is quoted (with the compensatory palatalization of -t?): bɨtʸ {бытʹ}.
Distinct from ǯɨkʼrɨ 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк); handle' and aˤrd 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26] (the latter is borrowed from Azerbaijani ard 'back part of body').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: riǯʷ with polysemy: 'tail / fat tail of sheep (курдюк) / handle' [Uslar 1979: 896, 1009; Dirr 1905: 203, 246]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: riǯʷ {рижъ} with polysemy: 'tail / handle' [Genko 2005: 133].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ruǯʷ {ружъ} with polysemy: 'tail / fat tail of sheep (курдюк) / handle' [Genko 2005: 134]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: riǯʷ {рижв} with polysemy: 'tail / fat tail of sheep (курдюк) / handle / hanger-on, stooge' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 260].
Gyune Lezgi:tːum-1
Uslar 1896: 559, 637. Polysemy: 'tail / handle'. As proposed in [Haspelmath 1993: 508], the word is most likely ultimately borrowed from Persian dum 'tail'.
The same loanword in Literary Lezgi: tːum {тум, ттум} with polysemy: 'tail / fat tail of sheep (курдюк) / handle / confederate' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 315; Gadzhiev 1950: 912; Haspelmath 1993: 508, 527].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut tːɨm 'tail' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 26]. Khlyut ɨm < um is a late process, cf., e.g., inherited gɨm 'smoke'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ħɨrčːʷ ~ *ʡɨrčːʷ1
NCED: 529. Distribution: Retained as the basic term for 'tail' in Udi, Archi and most of the Nuclear Lezgian lects: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran. In Tsakhur, *ħɨrčːʷ (~ *ʡ-) was narrowed to the specific meaning 'fat tail of sheep (курдюк)' (if we deal with the same etymological root in the Tsakhur form ǯɨ-kʼrɨ, because the second element -kʼrɨ as well as the entire morphological analysis are unclear).
In Tsakhur, 'tail' is expressed with the etymologically obscure form bɨˤtːʸ-.
In Lezgi, apparently an Iranian loanword is used for 'tail'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for some peculiarities: metathesis (*Hɨrčːʷ > *rɨčːʷ) in Aghul and Tabasaran, and elimination of the direct stem in favor of the oblique one with subsequent reduction of the first syllable (Kryts, Budukh, Rutul, Tsakhur).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *Hɨrč:ʷɨ-.
According to [Gukasyan 1974: 276, 279; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 469; Schulze 2008; Schulze 2005: 237 ff. (3.2.9.3), 447 ff. (3.3.7.1)], the underlying Nidzh-Vartashen system of demonstrative attributive pronouns was ternary: *me [proximal] / *ka [medial] / *tːe [distal]. This opposition is attested in both of the modern dialects:
Nidzh mo / ko / šo ~ tːe (both forms šo and tːa are used in the absolutive, whereas only tːe is used in other cases);
Vartashen me / ka / tːe.
On the other hand, it is calculated in [Schulze 2008: 255 ff.; Schulze 2005: 237 ff. (3.2.9.3)] that the medial demonstrative attributive ka is used significantly less frequently than proximal me and distal tːe both in Nidzh and Vartashen texts. Thereby it is possible to analyze this as a system with the basic binary opposition *me 'this' / *tːe 'that'.
The Nidzh attributive pronoun šo is probably secondary in the attributive function. The normal function of both Nidzh šo ~ šo-no and Vartashen še-no ~ šo-no is the non-attributive pronouns '(s)he, it, they' [Gukasyan 1974: 276, 277].
Caucasian Albanian: Demonstrative attributive pronouns in the Swadesh function are too poorly documented in the palimpsests (cf. [Schulze 2008: 303 ff.; Gippert et al. 2008: II-38]).
For the sake of lexicostatistics, the list in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-66] fills the slot 'this' with -me and the slot 'that' with -tʼe-, -še-. In actuality, -tʼe- is a suffixal morpheme, added to the oblique stem of the neuter anaphoric pronoun [Gippert et al. 2008: II-38] and, accordingly, to nominal referentialised forms [Gippert et al. 2008: II-29]; -š- is found only in the damaged adverbial form ešol-oqoc 'from this side' and in the adverb e-še '(t)here(?)' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-38, IV-15] (in fact, the interpretation of the latter form is also quite uncertain, cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: VII-90 fn. 70]). In turn, -me is apparently found only in the proximal adverb e-me 'here' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-38, IV-15].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 323; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 124; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 263; Kibrik 1994: 319; Mikailov 1967: 93; Dirr 1908: 29. Refers to an object far from the speaker and addressee.
As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 124] and [Kibrik 1994: 319], the system of Archi demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary (excluding the vertical oriented forms): ya-class 'this (near the speaker)' / yˈa-mu-class 'this (near the addressee)' / to-class 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. Since the basic lexicon per se is not only anthropocentric, but eventually egocentric, we prefer to assume that the basic system is binary: ya-class 'this' (near the speaker)' / to-class 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. It should be noted that, according to [Dirr 1908: 29], these two are statistically the most frequently used demonstrative pronouns.
Saadiev 1994: 420. According to [Saadiev 1994: 420], the basic system of demonstrative (Saadiev's "deictic") attributive pronouns is binary: li 'this' / lä 'that'. According to [Saadiev 1994: 420 f.], there exists another set of deictic pronouns: u-class 'this' / ä-class 'that'. The difference between li / lä and u-class / ä-class is not explicated by Saadiev, but, since the pronouns of the latter set agree in class, it is likely that these are used independently, not attributively.
Authier 2009: 62 f. According to the description and examples in [Authier 2009: 62 f.], the same binary system of demonstrative attributive pronouns as in Kryts proper: lu ~ ha=lu 'this' / la ~ ha=la 'that'. Optional ha= is a Common Lezgian deictic emphatic stem.
According to reports in [Talibov 2007: 121 f.] and [Meylanova 1984: 192], the Budukh system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is apparently ternary: ulu ~ olu 'this (near the speaker)' / al-am ~ am 'this (near the addressee)' / ala 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. The medium member (al-am ~ am 'this near the addressee') seems marginal, and we prefer to exclude it from the list.
Kryts cognates suggest that Budukh stems ulu 'this' and ala 'that' are to be analyzed as compounds u-lu, a-la. In each case both morphemes represent meaningful elements. It should be noted, however, that in substantivized forms (i.e. modified by class-prefixes) the second morphemes can be omitted, thus u-class ~ u-lu-class 'this' / a-class ~ a-la-class 'that' [Talibov 2007: 122; Meylanova 1984: 192].
In [Alekseev 1994: 267 f.], the demonstrative pronouns are confused: ala is erroneously quoted for 'this', ulu - for 'that'.
According to [Kibrik et al. 1999; Ibragimov 1990] and [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010], the Mishlesh and Literary Tsakhur system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: i-n 'this (near, here)' / ma-n 'that (there)' / še-n 'that (far away)' (or ha=y-n / ha=ma-n / hoː=še-n with the emphatic proclitics ha- 'here' and hoː 'there'). Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1999] suggests that ma-n (ha=ma-n) probably means 'this', but it is difficult to make a definite choice between i-n (ha=y-n) and ma-n (ha=ma-n), so we treat them as synonyms for 'this'.
ma-n also functions as a personal pronoun of the 3rd p.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: according to [Schulze 1997: 39], the system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: i-n 'this (near, here)' / ma-n 'that (there, visible)' / še-n 'that (far away, invisible)'. Semantic and pragmatic nuances are unknown, however.
Dirr 1913: 35 ff. According to [Dirr 1913], the Mikik system of demonstrative attributive pronouns is ternary: i-n 'this' / ma-n 'this' / še-n 'that' (with the emphatic variants ha=y-n, ha=ma-n). We treat i-n and ma-n as synonyms for 'this'.
ma-n also functions as a personal pronoun of the 3rd p.
It is not easy to understand all the nuances of the Mukhad system of demonstrative attributive pronouns, based on the aforementioned sources. Apparently the basic opposition is binary: mi 'this' / ti 'that'. Both pronouns can be additionally supplemented with the emphatic morpheme he-: he=mi / he=ti.
There also exists, however, a third pronoun ha {гьа} (with the variant ha-d, where the final element seems to be a fossilized class exponent), which is used as both the personal pronoun of the 3rd p. '(s)he, it, they' and the demonstrative attributive pronoun. The exact meaning of the demonstrative ha is not entirely clear. In [Alekseev 1994a: 225], ha is glossed as 'this, that'; in [Ibragimov 1978: 81], as 'that (distal deixis)'; on the contrary, in [Makhmudova 2001: 170] ha is explained as 'that (near the addressee)'. In any case, ha is, apparently, rarely used in the attributive meaning; according to [Dirr 1912: 38], the most frequent function of ha is the 3rd p. pronoun '(s)he, it, they'.
Dzhamalov & Semedov do not provide much information, but, apparently, the Ixrek system is the same as the Mukhad one: mi-dɨ 'this' / ti-n-dɨ 'that', plus ha-dɨ, which normally means '(s)he, it, they', but can also be used as the demonstrative attributive 'that'. The final -dɨ is the attributive suffix; -n- in ti-n-dɨ 'that' originates from the oblique stem.
Suleymanov 1993: 128, 130. Binary system on the horizontal axis: mi-me 'this' / ti-me 'that'. Additional members are gi-me 'that (below)' and li-me 'that (above)'.
Suleymanov 1993: 128; Shaumyan 1941: 59, 61. Binary system on the horizontal axis: mi 'this' / ti 'that'. Additional members are gi 'that (below)' and li 'that (above)'.
Dirr 1907: 21; Suleymanov 1993: 128; Shaumyan 1941: 59, 61. Binary system on the horizontal axis: me 'this' / te 'that'. Additional members are ge 'that (below)' and le 'that (above)'.
Suleymanov 1993: 128; Suleymanov 2003: 153; Shaumyan 1941: 59, 61. Binary system on the horizontal axis: me 'this' / te 'that'. Additional members are ge 'that (below)' and le 'that (above)'.
AGX_NOTES:
As described in [Magometov 1970: 109 ff.; Suleymanov 1993: 128 ff.; Shaumyan 1941: 59 ff.], the basic quaternary system of demonstrative pronouns 'this' / 'that' / 'that (below)' / 'that (above)' coincides in all dialects (in the subdialects of Koshan they are supplemented with the enclitics -m(e) or -d of pronominal origin). In all the dialects these basic pronouns can be modified with the emphatic proclitic ha= [Suleymanov 1993: 128]. The word te ~ ti 'that' is also normally used as the personal pronoun of the 3rd p. 'he, she, it, they'.
It is reported in [Suleymanov 1993: 129] that in many dialects the pronouns 'that', 'that (below)' and 'that (above)' can be modified with the iconic proclitic oː= ~ hoː= ~ woː= (depending on the dialect), which expresses distal deixis, e.g., Keren hoː=ti 'that (far horizontally) / hoː=gi 'that (far below) / hoː=li 'that (far above). Apparently these forms are rare and marginal.
Magometov 1965: 178. According to Magometov's data, the Dyubek system of attributive deictic pronouns on the horizontal axis is binary: mu ~ mu-mu 'this' / du-mu 'that'. Two additional "vertical" members are ǯu-mu 'that (below)' and qːu-mu 'that (above)'.
In the Khanag subdialect, the "horizontal" system can be more complicated, being extended with the third member tu. Uslar describes the Khanag "horizontal" system as ternary: mu 'this (near the speaker)' / du-mˈu 'this (near the addressee)' / tu-mˈu 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. The analysis is actually not quite correct, as follows from Uslar's own remark: "This explanation of mu / du-mˈu / tu-mˈu is undoubtedly right, because it has been adopted from various sources. But Tabasaran speakers themselves pay little attention to such semantic nuances in the natural speech" [Uslar 1979: 136]. Apparently Uslar implies that the opposition between du-mˈu and tu-mˈu is in fact desemanticized.
According to [Dirr 1905: 37 f.], however, the Khanag "horizontal" system is binary: mu (~ mu-mu) 'this' / du-mu (~ tu-mu ~ du ~ tu) 'that'. See Common Tabasaran notes on this controversy.
As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 124] and [Kibrik 1994: 319], the system of Archi demonstrative attributive pronouns on the horizontal axis (i.e., excluding the vertical oriented forms) is ternary: ya-class 'this (near the speaker)' / yˈa-mu-class 'this (near the addressee)' / to-class 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. According to [Dirr 1908: 29], ya-class / to-class are statistically the most frequently used demonstrative pronouns. We prefer to assume that the basic Archi system is binary: ya-class 'this' (near the speaker)' / to-class 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'; in turn, the complex demonstrative yˈa-mu-class 'this (near the addressee)' looks like a recent formation, created for some specific semantic or pragmatic nuances.
Two additional "vertical" members are gu-dˈu 'that (below)', ʁu-dˈu 'that (above)' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 124; Kibrik 1994: 319].
Magometov 1965: 178-179. This word is actually from the Khiv subdialect; the proper Kondik pronoun is unknown.
According to Magometov's data, the Khiv system of attributive deictic pronouns on the horizontal axis is binary: mu 'this' / du-mu (~ ha-t-mu) 'that'. On the variant with -t- (ha-t-mu) see Common Tabasaran notes. Two Khiv "vertical" pronouns are: kːu-mu 'that (below)' / ʁu-mu 'that (above)' [Magometov 1965: 178].
The Literary Tabasaran "horizontal" system is also binary: mu 'this' / du-mu 'that', as described in [Zhirkov 1948: 98 ff.]. According to Zhirkov, "vertical" pronouns 'that (below)' / 'that (above)' were lost. On the contrary, in [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 151, 282, 433] the literary "horizontal" system is evasively described as mu 'this' / t-mu 'that' with the third member du-mu 'that' (difference between t-mu and du-mu is not explicated).
TAB_NOTES:
In all the dialects the aforementioned deictic pronouns can be additionally modified with the emphatic pronominal proclitic ha= [Magometov 1965: 178; Zhirkov 1948: 101; Dirr 1905: 37].
It is possible that the Proto-Tabasaran system of attributive deictic pronouns on the horizontal axis was indeed ternary, as it is described by Uslar for the Khanag subdialect: *mu 'this (near the speaker)' / *du 'that (near the addressee)' / *tu 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. In all the dialects, the absolutive forms of the two latter members are secondarily modified with the desemanticized morpheme -mu, i.e. du-mu and tu-mu.
In fact, however, the third member tu (or tu-mu) seems very rare and marginal in the described Tabasaran dialects. In [Dirr 1905: 37 ff.], the forms tu and tu-mu 'that' is noted only in parentheses as a variant of du(-mu); in [Magometov 1965: 176 ff.], only the emphatic form ha-t-mu 'exactly that' is observed; no forms with the morpheme t(u) are quoted in [Zhirkov 1948: 98 ff.].
Thus, according to the dialectal overview in [Magometov 1965: 176 ff.], the common Tabasaran basic opposition on the horizontal axis is currently binary: mu 'this' / du-mu 'that'.
Uslar 1896: 69, 70. According to [Uslar 1896: 69 ff.], the Gyune system of attributive deictic pronouns on the horizontal axis is binary: i 'this (near the speaker)' / a 'this (near the addressee)' / a-tʼˈa 'that (far from the speaker and addressee)'. Two additional "vertical" members are a-ʁˈa 'that (below)' and wa-nˈi 'that (above)'.
The Literary Lezgi system has been semantically transformed: i 'this' / a 'that' / a-tʼˈa 'yonder' / a-ʁˈa 'that (below)' / wi-nˈi 'that (above)' [Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 46; Haspelmath 1993: 190] (somewhat differently in [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 156]). As noted in [Haspelmath 1993: 190], however, only i 'this' and a 'that' are frequent in the modern literary language, other pronouns are marginal. Thus the Literary Lezgi system is, in fact, binary.
Proto-Lezgian:*tV1
NCED: 993. Distribution: The Proto-Lezgian system of the demonstrative pronouns can hardly be reconstructed in all details. It is particularly unclear whether the system was binary - 'this' / 'that' - or ternary: 'this' / 'that (near)' / that (far)'. Nevertheless, some general considerations can be proposed. The main data on the pronouns on the horizontal axis are summarized as follows (synchronically basic forms are bold-faced as opposed to statistically marginal ones):
'THIS/THAT'
Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*mV [NCED: 842]
me this
ya-mu that (near)
a-m that (near)
ma this
mithis
methis
muthis
*tʼV
tːe that (far)
tʼa that (far)
*tV [NCED: 993]
to that (far)
tithat
tithat
tu that
*dV [NCED: 404]
duthat
*kV
ka that (near)
*ʔi [NCED: 214]
y-athis
i this
ithis
*lV [NCED: 775]
li this lä that
u-luthis a-lathat (far)
*šV- [LEDb: #187]
še that
*ha- [NCED: 486]
ha that
*ʔa [NCED: 218]
a-lathat (far)
athat (near)
*ʔu [NCED: 222]
u-luthis
The demonstrative pronoun of proximal deixis 'this' can be assuredly reconstructed as *mV [NCED: 842]: this function was retained in Udi and many Nuclear Lezgian languages (Tsakhur, Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran). In Archi, this root forms the secondary pronoun of medial deixis ya-mu 'near the addressee'.
Reconstruction of the distal deixis pronoun 'that' is more complicated. As one can see, forms that originate from virtual *tʼV and virtual *tV are in complementary distribution among languages. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that these go back to a single protoform with occasional sound irregularities (this is not rare in grammatical morphemes). External comparison suggests that the original shape should be *tV [NCED: 993]; if so, we deal with secondary tenseness in Udi and secondary ejectivization in Lezgi (both cases are probably iconically conditioned). The pronoun *tV (~ *tʼV) is the obvious candidate for the status of the Proto-Lezgian pronoun 'that' (this function was retained in Udi, Archi and the most of Nuclear Lezgian lects).
It should be noted that in [NCED: 404], the ejective forms in Udi (tːe) and in Lezgi (tʼa) are included into the entry *dV. First, this is not likely due to the aforementioned considerations. Second, evidence for the Proto-Lezgian demonstrative morpheme *dV is relatively weak: this is the basic Tabasaran pronoun du 'that' and the second element of the Archi vertical pronoun gu-dˈu 'that (below)', ʁu-dˈu 'that (above)'. Other descendants of *dV, listed in [NCED: 404], should be excluded: Kryts ä-d, Budukh a-d 'that' (used independently), where -d is in fact a synchronic class exponent; apparently in Rutul ha ~ ha-d '(s)he, it, they', the final -d represents the same fossilized grammatical morpheme.
Note also that it is theoretically possible to reconstruct *tV (~*tʼV) as the specific pronoun of distal deixis 'that (far)'. In such a case, *ʔi [NCED: 214] is the main candidate for the Proto-Lezgian pronoun of medial deixis 'that (near)'.
To sum up, the Proto-Lezgian system of the demonstrative pronouns in the horizontal row can be reconstructed as binary *mV 'this' / *tV 'that' or (with less certainty) ternary *mV 'this' / *ʔi 'that (near)' / *tV that (far)'.
The totally restructured South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) system probably originates from the old "vertical" demonstrative pronouns, thus in [NCED: 775].
The morpheme *ha- [NCED: 486] is the Common Lezgian pronominal emphatic "augment" (thus Rutul ha 'that' may in fact originate from *ha-ʔa). The original Proto-Lezgian status and exact function of other demostrative morphemes listed above are not clear.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular except for (iconic?) ejectivization/tenseness in Udi and Lezgi and vowel fluctuation among various lects (perhaps of contracted origin).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 255; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 124; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 263; Kibrik 1994: 319; Mikailov 1967: 93; Dirr 1908: 29. Refers to an object near the speaker; see notes on 'that'.
A suppletive paradigm is retained in both dialects: *u-n [abs., erg.] / *vi [gen.] / *va- [obl.]. Note the laryngeal prothesis in Nidzh hun (not infrequent phenomenon in the Nidzh dialect).
Caucasian Albanian: vun [abs., erg.] / veː [gen.] / va- [obl.] [Gippert et al. 2008: II-37, IV-39].
The Tsakhur absolutive form wu 'thou', which is sometimes quoted in secondary literature as a free variant for ʁu (thus, e.g., [Alekseev 1985: 72]), has not been found in the primary sources that are available to us.
One of the most economic scenarios presupposes reconstructing for Proto-Rutul a suppletive paradigm of 'thou' with four stems: *wɨ [abs.] / *ʁu [erg.] / *yuʁ-dɨ [gen.] / wa- [dat.]. In Mukhad, Muxrek & Luchek the paradigm was completely restructured after the absolutive and oblique stems wɨ / wa-: gen. wɨ-dɨ is a regular synchronic formation on the basis of abs. wɨ, whereas the new ergative form is based on oblique wa-. In Borch-Khnov the paradigm, on the contrary, was analogically levelled after the ergative ʁu; oblique ʁʷa- represents a hybrid of old *wa- and the new stem ʁu-. Similarly, the Ixrek paradigm was levelled up after ergative ʁu, but the old genitive yuʁ-dɨ is still retained. The situation in Shinaz is more complicated: apparently the old genitive form was superseded with the new formation based on abs. wɨ (an innovation shared with the Mukhad, Muxrek & Luchek dialects, which surround the Shinaz area, see the map in [Ibragimov 1978: 14]) and subsequently Shinaz abs. wɨ was superseded with the ergative morpheme ʁu.
Uslar 1896: 59. Paradigm: wu-n [abs.] / wu-n-ˈa ~ na [erg.] / wi-n ~ wi [gen.] / wa- [obl.]. The ergative variant na looks like a reduction of the full form wunˈa.
The same in Literary Lezgi: wu-n [abs.] / wu-n-ˈa ~ na [erg.] / wi [gen.] / wa- [obl.] {вун} 'thou' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 150; Haspelmath 1993: 184].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut wɨ-n [abs.] / wɨ-n-ˈa [erg.] / wi [gen.] / wa- [obl.] 'thou' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222].
Proto-Lezgian:*u̯o-n1
NCED: 483, 1014. Distribution: Retained as the independent personal pronoun of the 2nd p. sg. in all lects. The detailed reconstruction, however, is not entirely clear. We prefer to reconstruct the following Proto-Lezgian suppletive paradigm: *u̯o-n [abs.] / *ʁu [erg.] / *class=oʁ(ʷ) [gen.] / *u̯a- [obl.], even though none of the known Lezgian lects has preserved this assumed paradigm intact.
In almost all the lects (except for Tsakhur, Rutul), ʁ-forms were completely eliminated. The new ergative forms coincide with abs. *u̯o(-n) or, occasionally, are based on obl. *u̯a-. The new genitive forms normally represent something like *u̯i- or *u̯e-, although in Kryts, the genitive is based on obl. *u̯a-, whereas Koshan Aghul and Tabasaran yaw ~ yew 'of thee' is a hybrid of old *class=oʁ(ʷ) and the u̯-forms. It should be noted that the origin of the common genitive *u̯i- ~ *u̯e- is unclear.
The only group in which ʁ-forms have survived is West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul). In Tsakhur, the absolutive coincides with the ergative *ʁu. Many Tsakhur dialects, however, demonstrate the subsequent secondary derivation of the ergative and genitive forms from obl. *u̯a-. The Rutul situation is more complicated, although it is possible to derive all the variety of attested Rutul systems from the Proto-Rutul paradigm *wɨ [abs.] / *ʁu [erg.] / *yuʁ-dɨ [gen.] / wa- [dat.], which directly continues the assumed Proto-Lezgian paradigm.
Note that pace [NCED: 483] Nidzh Udi hun has nothing to do with *ʁu-n, but originates from Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *wu-n with the (not infrequent) Nidzh prothesis h-.
As in the case of the 1st sg. pronoun 'I' q.v., the Tabasaran absolutive-ergative-oblique stem iwu- represents a hybrid of the old absolutive and genitive forms.
The absolutive form can be safely reconstructed with the nasal suffix: *u̯o-n. The only lects that lack the nasal element are some Rutul dialects (wɨ for expected **wɨ-n), where we probably deal with influence on the part of erg. ʁu 'thou' and abs. zɨ 'I'.
Reconstruction shape: Basic correspondences seem regular, although *u̯ is a very rare Proto-Lezgian phoneme.
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal root. The suppletive paradigm: *u̯o-n [abs.] / *ʁu [erg.] / *class=oʁ(ʷ) [gen.] / *u̯a- [obl.].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 15; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 198. Paradigm: mez [abs.] / mez-il ~ miz [gen.]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the absolutive form mäz is quoted as a variant.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: milʒ 'tongue' [Uslar 1979: 856, 1010; Dirr 1905: 195, 247]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk, Kumi milʒ {милзз} 'tongue' [Genko 2005: 120].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: melz {мелз} 'tongue' [Genko 2005: 119]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: melz {мелз} 'tongue' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 227].
Distinct from Nidzh meran ‘fang’ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17]. In [Gukasyan 1974: 173] quoted as merun ‘fang of wild boar’ (according to Gukasyan, attested in both Nidzh and Vartashen). A term of unclear origin.
Distinct from the specific term azu ~ azu sil 'molar' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17; Meylanova 1984: 18], borrowed from Azerbaijani azɨ diši 'molar' (Budukh phonetics suggests the dialectal variant *azu).
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 235, 343; Ibragimov 1978: 222; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 199. Regular paradigm: sɨl-ab [sg.] / sɨl-ab-ɨr [pl.]. According to examples in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], this is the basic term for 'tooth' (final -ab is a fossilized plural exponent).
A second candidate is sɨs {сыс} 'tooth' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 236, 343]; no examples have been found, but sɨs is used in the expression for 'to bite' q.v.: sɨs haʔ-, literally 'tooth + to do'.
Distinct from the more specific term wɨgːɨn {выггын} with polysemy: 'fang / wedge' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 49].
Distinct from the more specific terms: ʁʷab-ad sɨs 'molar', literally 'tooth of root' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17] and wɨgɨn 'fang' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17].
It seems that the Proto-Rutul term for 'tooth (in general)' should be reconstructed as sɨl; early on, its plural form sɨl-ab spread onto the singular number in all dialects, but currently the new singular form sɨl-ab is being superseded by the unrelated form sɨs. The underlying meaning of sɨs can be 'incisor' or 'canine tooth', because in many Rutul dialects the expression for 'to bite' q.v. is based on this substantive: sɨs + 'to do'.
Suleymanov 2003: 70 (sub ʢačirʜas); Shaumyan 1941: 162. The same in other subdialects: Tsirkhe silew, Duldug saliw 'tooth' [Shaumyan 1941: 162]. Distinct from Tpig säχʷ 'molar' [Suleymanov 2003: 149] and kːančː 'fang' [Suleymanov 2003: 107].
AGX_NOTES:
Historically sil-eb 'tooth' with the fossilized plural exponent. It should be noted that, according to [Shaumyan 1941: 162], in all the dialects sil-eb (~ w) means specifically 'incisor', not 'tooth (in general)'; the same is proposed for Richa in [Dirr 1907]. Apparently 'incisor' is an inaccurate gloss, cf. the following passages, which prove the generic meaning 'tooth' for sil-eb (~ w): Tpig 'Foolhardy guys in a small room = teeth' (a riddle) [Shaumyan 1941: 123], Fite 'I have cracked a nut with my teeth' [Magometov 1970: 83].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 16. Distinct from Dyubek šˈarʁˤ-a 'molar' and kʼˈamčː-a 'fang' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: silˈib [abs.] / silb-ˈ [obl.] 'tooth' [Uslar 1979: 908, 994]; in [Dirr 1905: 204, 230], quoted as selew [abs.] / selb- [obl.] 'tooth' with additional phonetic development b# > w#. Distinct from Khanag šarʁ or šarʁˤ 'molar' [Dirr 1905: 220].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: silib {силиб} 'tooth' [Genko 2005: 139]; distinct from Khyuryuk šarʁ {шаргъ} 'molar' [Genko 2005: 189] (apparently Genko's error for expected **šarʁˤ {шяргъ}).
The same in the Khoredzh and Chara subdialects: slib [abs.] / spː- [obl.] 'tooth' [Magometov 1965: 58]; distinct from Chara šarʁ {шаргъ} 'molar' [Genko 2005: 189] (apparently Genko's error for expected **šarʁˤ {шяргъ}).
The same in Literary Tabasaran: silˈib [abs.] / silb-ˈ [obl.] {силиб} 'tooth' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 271]. Distinct from two literary terms for 'molar': saχʷ {сахв} 'molar' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 270] and šarʁˤ {шяргъ} 'molar' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 353]. Distinct from two literary terms for 'fang': kːanč {кканч} with polysemy: 'fang (of wild boar) / high temple (hair)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 196] (the primary meaning is 'fang') and kʼir {кIир} with polysemy: 'hook / fang' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 214] (the primary meaning is 'hook').
Differently in the Khiv subdialect: sars {сарс} 'tooth' [Genko 2005: 137]. Distinct from Khiv saχʷ {сахв} 'molar' [Genko 2005: 138] and kːanč {кканч} 'fang (of wild boar)' [Genko 2005: 92].
TAB_NOTES:
At least three Proto-Tabasaran terms can be reconstructed with exact meanings: silib 'tooth in general' (historically sil-ib with the fossilized plural suffix; note various ways of the reduction of unaccented vowels in individual dialects), šarʁˤ 'molar', kʼamčː- ~ kːančː~ kːanč 'fang'. The original meanings and status of Southern sars (shifted to 'tooth in general' in Khiv, if Genko's gloss is correct) and saχʷ (the second word for 'molar') are unclear.
Uslar 1896: 546, 613. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: sas [abs.] / sar-ˈa- [obl.] / sar-ˈar [pl.]. The oblique morpheme sar- originates from the old plural form *ss-ar < *sis-ˈar < *sas-ˈar. See [Haspelmath 1993: 62] for such a reduction in Literary Lezgi. This analysis is unambiguously proven by the Akhty paradigm sas [abs.] / ss-a- [obl.] (see below).
Distinct from Gyune sʷaχ [abs.] / suχʷ-ˈa- [obl.] 'molar' [Uslar 1896: 546, 613]. Cf. also Gyune kʼir, which is glossed only as 'hook' in [Uslar 1896: 477].
The same generic term in Literary Lezgi: sas [abs.] / sar-ˈa- [obl.] / sar-ˈar [pl.] {сас} 'tooth' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 287; Gadzhiev 1950: 250; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 528] (incorrectly glossed as 'incisor' by Haspelmath). Distinct from literary sʷaχ [abs.] / suχʷ-ˈa- [obl.] {свах} 'molar' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 288; Haspelmath 1993: 506], kʼir {кIир} 'hook / fang' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 217] and gung {гунг} 'fang (of wild boar)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 89].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut sas [abs.] / ss-a- [obl.] / ss-ar [pl.] 'tooth' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 16]. Distinct from Khlyut kːʷalˈaχ 'molar' and kʼir 'fang' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 17].
Proto-Lezgian:*sɨlː1
NCED: 326. Distribution: Retained as the generic term for 'tooth' in all languages, except for several Nuclear Lezgian lects.
In some Rutul dialects (Luchek, Khnyukh, Shinaz), Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) and probably in all Lezgi dialects, this stem was superseded with *sars (~ sː) [LEDb: #110] - an areal Lezgi-induced isogloss. The original meaning of *sars is unclear, because this root is not attested outside Rutul, Tabasaran and Lezgi and lacks external North Caucasian etymology (some Rutul data may point to the local meaning 'incisor' or 'canine tooth', although it is not certain).
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. In Udi and many Nuclear Lezgian lects the old plural forms, modified with fossilized suffixes, are currently used in the singular meaning. Due to this reason, the oblique stem is not reconstructible.
Common Udi *χod, distinct from Nidzh-Vartashen ušˤ {ушI} 'firewood, cut down tree' [Gukasyan 1974: 214; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 162; Dirr 1903: 22; Mobili 2010: 281] and durutː {дурутI} 'beam; wood, timber' [Gukasyan 1974: 113; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 49; Mobili 2010: 101] (the latter corresponds to Caucasian Albanian durud 'piece of wood'; borrowed from Iranian, cf. Persian durod 'timber, a plank').
Caucasian Albanian: Unattested. The restoration of the lexeme χod 'tree' is uncertain, see [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22, VII-21, 90 fn. 52]. Cf. the loanword durud 'piece of wood' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-13], for which see above.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 95; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 299, 357; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 403; Mikailov 1967: 202; Dirr 1908: 162, 207. Unjustifiedly labeled as "perhaps borrowed" in [Chumakina 2009] without the source (perhaps Avar ʁʷetʼ 'tree' is implicated, although the supposed phonetic adaptation is illogical).
Distinct from cʼaħˈanː- 'wood, timber' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 208; Chumakina et al. 2007; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 49] (in the light of ħ should be a loanword).
Authier 2009: 36, 40, 65, 81, 174, 212, 213, 214, etc. Polysemy: 'tree / (piece of) wood' (for the latter meaning see [Authier 2009: 104, 195, etc.]). There exists another term for 'tree': dar [Authier 2009: 36, 38], but this has not been confirmed in textual examples; apparently dar is currently almost superseded by kʼina (although it should be noted that the semantic development '(piece of) wood' > 'living tree' is typologically very uncommon, whereas vice versa is frequent).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 95. Polysemy: 'tree / firewood'. Two Fite words are quoted as synonyms for 'tree' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], each one with specific polysemy.
Suleymanov 2003: 127; Shaumyan 1941: 184. Polysemy: 'tree / log, firewood' (for the latter meaning see [Suleymanov 2003: 54 sub ʁas, 79 sub duč]).
Distinct from Tpig dar 'forest; cudgel' [Suleymanov 2003: 74; Shaumyan 1941: 168].
AGX_NOTES:
Common Aghul kʼur represents the Proto-Aghul term for 'tree'. Fite dar with polysemy: 'tree / forest' looks like an innovation, because dar denotes 'forest' or 'forest; (piece of) wood' in Keren (Richa), Gequn (Burkikhan) and Proper Aghul (Tpig). It must be noted, however, that dar should be a better candidate for Proto-Aghul 'tree' in the light of external Lezgian comparison.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: har with polysemy: 'tree / forest' [Uslar 1979: 708, 992; Dirr 1905: 172, 227]. Distinct from Khanag čʼerˈeʔ 'small tree' [Uslar 1979: 973; Dirr 1905: 219] and kʼakʼˈul 'wood, cut down tree, log, firewood' [Uslar 1979: 794; Dirr 1905: 189].
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: har {гьар} with polysemy: 'tree / forest' [Genko 2005: 50]. Distinct from Khyuryuk čʼerˈeʔ {чIереъ} 'small tree' [Genko 2005: 185] and kʼakʼˈul {кIакIул} 'log, cut down tree' [Genko 2005: 110].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: har {гьар} with polysemy: 'tree / forest' [Genko 2005: 50]. Distinct from Khiv wergˈil {вергил} 'small tree' [Genko 2005: 32] and gakʼˈul {гакIул} 'wood, log, firewood' [Genko 2005: 35]. For the dissimilative phonetics of the latter term cf. kʼakʼˈul {кIакIул} 'log, cut down tree' in the Tinit subdialect [Genko 2005: 110], as well as the Northern Tabasaran forms above.
Similarly in Literary Tabasaran: har {гьар} with polysemy: 'tree / pole' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 125]. Distinct from literary gakʼˈul {гакIул} 'wood, firewood' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 95] and yarkˈur {яркур} 'forest, grove' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 361].
The same in Literary Lezgi: tːar {тар, ттар} with polysemy: 'tree / wooden bar (e.g., of door)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 306; Gadzhiev 1950: 167; Haspelmath 1993: 507, 528]. Distinct from literary kʼarˈas {кIарас} 'wood, firewood' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 212; Gadzhiev 1950: 167; Haspelmath 1993: 496] and čχa {чха} 'split billet' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 376].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut tːar 'tree' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 95]. Distinct from Khlyut kʼarˈas 'wood, firewood', čχay 'log, billet' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 162].
Proto-Lezgian:*qːʷatʼ ~ *qːʷatʼ-Vy2
NCED: 466. Distribution: From the distributional point of view, three roots are in competition here, attested with the meaning 'tree' in Udi, Archi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian respectively. We fill the slot with the Archi root, because it is the only one that possesses an external North Caucasian cognate with the meaning 'tree' (Avar 'tree', further to Nakh 'stem, stalk', Lak 'bush, shrub', Dargi 'bush, shrub'). The stem *qːʷatʼ ~ *qːʷatʼ-Vy [NCED: 466] means 'tree' in Archi and 'tree stump, stub' in Luchek Rutul (qːʷatʼ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 98]), but was lost in the rest of Lezgian. Cf. also in other Rutul dialects: Shinaz Rutul qːʷatʼ-bɨ-r 'lock, doorlock' [Ibragimov 1978: 163] (with the double plural suffix) and Ixrek Rutul qːʷatʼ {къватI} 'mousetrap' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 156]; formally, these forms contain the same root, although the semantic development is not obvious. It must be noted that Archi qʷˈatʼi 'tree' has been accidentally overlooked by the authors in [NCED] and has not been included into the dictionary (the Archi cognate permits to specify the phonetic shape of the Proto-Lezgian form).
The second candidate is *χːʷar ~ *χːʷar-tː [NCED: 1079] (as proposed in [NCED: 888], Lezgian *-tː < North Caucasian *-di is a suffix, which sometimes modifies plant names). The prefixed stem *χːʷar-tː means 'tree' in Udi, whereas in other Lezgian languages, *χːʷar and *χːʷar-tː denote 'log, pole', 'ceiling', 'beam'. External North Caucasian comparanda (if correct) suggest that the original meaning of Lezgian *χːʷar ~ *χːʷar-tː could be 'a k. of foliage tree' (probably an endemic species, which was basically used as building wood). It must be noted that pace [NCED: 1079], Luchek Rutul χɨd 'lime tree' is not related here, but regularly originates from Proto-Lezgian *χer / *χer-tː 'lime tree' [NCED: 888].
The third candidate is *tːar [NCED: 399]. This root is attested with the meaning 'tree' in South Lezgian (Kryts Proper, Budukh) and Lezgi, having been lost in the rest of languages (except for Aghul, see below). Formal distribution suggests that this item should be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian term for 'tree'. In non-Koshan Aghul, *tːar means 'forest', except for Fite Aghul, where dar has secondarily acquired the polysemy 'tree / forest'. It is theoretically possible to suppose that dar actually represents the Proto-Aghul term for 'tree' and the shift 'tree' > 'forest' for dar is a late areal isogloss, which has not fully affected the Fite border territory. Such a solution does not seem apt, however, because the Common Aghul root for 'tree' is *kʼʷir, attested with this meaning in all Aghul dialects including Fite (there are two synchronic synonyms for 'tree' in Fite).
Several replacements of *tːar occurred in individual Nuclear Lezgian lects. The most interesting substitution took place in Alyk Kryts, where 'tree / (piece of) wood' is expressed with the root *kʼon-(ay) [NCED: 727]. The Proto-South Lezgian meaning of *kʼon-(ay) was '(piece of) wood, firewood' (as follows from the Kryts Proper and Budukh cognates), whereas the Archi and external North Caucasian comparanda suggest that the original Proto-Lezgian meaning of this root should be 'handle, grip'.
In Rutul, *tːar was superseded with *χːʷɨ(r)k [NCED: 1082]. The original meaning of the latter root should be 'forest' as follows from its Archi cognate χːʷak 'forest' and the polysemy 'tree / forest' in Muxrek Rutul.
In Aghul, *tːar was superseded with *kʼʷir (~ -ɨ-) [LEDb: #139]. This is a Common Lezgian root, attested in both Udi and some Nuclear Lezgian lects, where it denotes 'wooden pole', 'ladder-step', 'roofing wood'. The exact original meaning of *kʼʷir (~ -ɨ-) is not reconstructible.
Unetymologizable equivalents for 'tree' are attested in Tsakhur (yiw), Tabasaran (har).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qʼˤu-class 'two' [Uslar 1979: 151; Dirr 1905: 42]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qʼˤu-class {кьюв} 'two' [Genko 2005: 108].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: qʼˤu-class {кьюб} 'two' [Genko 2005: 107]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼˤu-class {кьюб} 'two' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 210; Zhirkov 1948: 91; Alekseev & Shikhalieva 2003: 52 f.].
TAB_NOTES:
See [Magometov 1965: 159 ff.] for the dialectal overview.
Uslar 1896: 86. In the non-attributive function, the variant qʼʷe-d is used.
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼʷe {кьве} 'two' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 566; Haspelmath 1993: 230] (in the non-attributive function, the variant qʼʷe-d {кьве} is used).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʼʷä-d 'two' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 247].
Final -d is the old class exponent.
Proto-Lezgian:*qʼʷˤä-class1
NCED: 924. Distribution: One of the most stable Lezgian roots, retained with the numeral meaning 'two' in all the lects.
Gukasyan 1974: 202; Dirr 1903: 40, 49, 51, 54, 88, 89, 91, 94, 95; Schiefner 1863: 95; Starchevskiy 1891: 486. In [Fähnrich 1999: 30] quoted as taʁ-esun - an important archaism, see below. Incorrectly glossed as 'to go into, come' in [Schulze 2001: 322], see notes on 'to come'. Distinct from čur-e-sun 'to walk' [Schiefner 1863: 88; Schulze 2001: 266] (cf. čur-p-sun 'to stand' q.v.).
UDI_NOTES:
As described in [Maisak 2008a: 108 f.], a suppletive paradigm: ta(y)- (present-infinitive) / tac- (past) / taʁ- (future) / tak- (imperative). For the paradigmatic distribution of the Nidzh present variants ta- and tay- see [Maisak 2008a: 107].
Udi verbs of motion (particularly basic 'to come' q.v. and 'to go') represent a certain morphological riddle. As discussed in [Harris 2002: 68 ff., 223 ff.; Maisak 2008a: 107 ff., 154 ff.] and some other publications and now strongly suggested by data from Caucasian Albanian, the attested Udi paradigm originates from the preverb ta- 'thither, away' plus the verb 'to go', which is reflected as Caucasian Albanian iʁ- (present-infinitive) / ac- (past) / ukal- (imperative); that is, Proto-Udi *ta=iʁ- (present-infinitive) / *ta=ac- (past) / *ta=iʁ- (future) / *ta=k- (imperative).
The attested Udi present stem ta(y)- goes back to *ta=iʁ- with ʁ > 0/y in the intervocalic position before front vowels or before consonants, cf. [Schulze 2005: 547 (3.4.2.1 #34)]. Accordingly, as it was correctly suspected in [Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 474] and [Harris 2002: 223 ff.], the Udi present ta=y- contains the same etymological morpheme as the future ta=ʁ-. It must be noted that in ta(y)- 'to go' and in another prefixed verb from the same root, e=y- 'to come' q.v., this -ʁ- is still sporadically retained in present and masdar forms in both Udi dialects (taʁ-esun etc.) [Schulze 2005: 547 (3.4.2.1 #34); Fähnrich 1999: 15, 30]. Alternatively it is supposed in [Maisak 2008a: 107, 145 f.] that the present stems ta=y- 'to go' and e=y- 'to come' originate from the imperative ta=k-,e=k- with k > y, although such a phonetic development is not regular in the forms discussed (the only known instance of such a shift is the verb bak-es 'to be' [Maisak 2008a: 144]).
The preverb ta- 'thither, away' is attested in few verbs in modern Udi (ta(y)- 'to go', taš- 'to carry away' and tad- 'to give' q.v., see [Maisak 2008a: 158]), but possesses a slightly broader distribution in Caucasian Albanian [Gippert et al 2008: II-45].
The Udi and Caucasian Albanian suppletive verbs 'to come' q.v., Udi e(y)- (present-infinitive) / ar- (past) / eʁ- (future) / ek- (imperative), Caucasian Albanian heʁ- (present-infinitive) / ar- (past) / hekal- (imperative), represent an almost exact morphological parallel to 'to go'. As correctly analyzed in [Schulze 2005: 547 (3.4.2.1 #34); Gippert et al. 2008: II-45, 51], verbs for 'to come' contain the preverb (h)e- 'hither' plus the plain verb 'to go'. Thus, Udi *e=iʁ- > *e=y- (present-infinitive) / *e=iʁ- (future) / *e=k- (imperative) 'to come' and Caucasian Albanian *he=iʁ- (present-infinitive) / he=kal- (imperative) 'to come'.
The verbal prefix (h)e- 'hither' is very scantily preserved in modern Udi [Maisak 2008a: 158], but is more widely attested in Caucasian Albanian [Gippert et al 2008: II-45].
Some authors (see discussions in [Harris 2002: 68 ff., 223 ff.] and [Maisak 2008a: 107 ff., 154 ff.]) suppose that the original root for 'to come' was *eʁ- / *ek-; afterwards, the initial e- was morphologically reanalyzed in Pre-Udi as a verbal prefix e- with the new meaning 'hither'. Data from Caucasian Albanian, where the preverb (h)e- is more productive than in the modern language, contradicts such an analysis.
Thus, we believe that the following present-infinitive-future (scil. imperfective) stems can assuredly be reconstructed for Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi:
1) *iʁ- 'to go' (retained in CA, lost in Udi);
2) *ta=iʁ- 'to go away (to go thither)' (retained in CA, broadened into 'to go / to go away' in Udi);
3) *(h)e=iʁ- 'to come (to go hither)' (retained both in CA and Udi).
Modern Udi demonstrates the typologically normal situation, in which the meanings 'to go (in general)' and 'to go away' merge into one verbal root, which is lexically opposed to an expression for 'to come'.
As for the past (scil. perfective) stem, here the opposition between two main concepts 'to go, go away' and 'to come' is expressed by different roots:
1) *ac- 'to go' (retained in CA, lost in Udi);
2) *ta=ac- 'to go away' (retained in CA, broadened into 'to go / to go away' in Udi);
3) *ar- 'to come' (retained both in CA and Udi).
Note that in fact the plain *ac- survived in Modern Udi as the past stem -(e)c- of the light verb -e-, which functions as an intransitivizer or decausative (for which see [Maisak 2008a: 139 ff.; Schulze 2005: 562 ff. (3.4.2.2 #11 ff.)]).
The situation with the imperative stems is less clear etymologically. Cf. Caucasian Albanian u(=)kal- ~ e=k-e- 'to go (imv.)', he=kal- 'to come (imv.)' [Gippert et al 2008: II-51] vs. Udi ta=k-e 'to go (imv.)', e=k-e 'to come (imv.)' [Schulze 2005: 552 (3.4.2.1 #44)]. Schulze & Gippert might theoretically be right that Udi =k- is an allegro variant of *=kal- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-51]. At first sight, the CA form ukal- looks like u=kal- with a unique prefix u- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-51], but the initial u can also be a normal reflex of the first vowel of the proto-root, see notes on up- 'to say'.
Quite a different analysis has been proposed in [NCED: 423] (whose authors were naturally not aware of Causasian Albanian data): Udi ta(y)- 'to go, to go away' is explained as a secondary formation from the unattested Udi gerund *atay and further compared to Lezgi at- 'to come, arrive', which does not currently seem apt.
Caucasian Albanian: A suppletive verb iʁ- (present-infinitive) / ac-e- (past) / ukal- (imperative) [Gippert et al 2008: II-44, 45, 51, IV-21]. Also attested with the preverb ta- 'thither': ta-iʁ-esun 'to go away, thither' [Gippert et al 2008: II-45].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 299; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 73; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 491; Mikailov 1967: 203. Suppletive paradigm: =ˈoqˤe- [imperf., perf.] / =qˤe- [inf.] / χˈa- [potential]. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away / to go by horse or car'.
Distinct from a more specific verb =ˈerqˤa- 'to walk, go' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 239; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 235; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 491; Mikailov 1967: 178]. Both verbs are probably etymologically related, representing various grades of Proto-Lezgian Ablaut [NCED: 572 f.]; the medial -r- in =ˈerqˤa- 'to walk' is a fossilized durative infix; initial h-, which appears in the IV class forms of =ˈerqˤa- (hˈerqˤa-), is not entirely clear.
The same Proto-Lezgian root is retained as the perfective stem =qˤˈa of ‘to come’ q.v.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 74; Saadiev 1994: 427. Suppletive paradigm: čä-r- ~ če-r- [imperf.] / =ix- [perf.]. We treat čä-r- and =ix- as synonyms. Polysemy: 'to go / to go away'.
From the etymological point of view, it seems probable that imperfective čä-r- originates from *č=äʁ-r- (cf. its Budukh counterpart), although the loss of ʁ seems irregular; in this case č= is the prefix 'next to' [Saadiev 1994: 424]. Perfective =ix- is the same root as 'to come' q.v.
Meylanova 1984: 34, 215; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 74. Suppletive paradigm: č=aʁa-r- [imperf.] / v=ixi- [perf.]. Initial č= and v= are spatial prefixes [Alekseev 1994: 271]. We treat č=aʁa-r- and v=ixi- as synonyms. Perfective =ixi- is the same root as 'to come' q.v.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 868, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 35. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 491], erroneously quoted as aˤpʸah- {аIпягьас}.
According to [Kibrik et al. 1999], there are two suppletive verbs, both of them with polysemy: 'to go / to go away':
1) aˤlʸ=haː- < *aˤlʸ=ha-a- [imperf., fut.] / akʼɨn [perf.] / h=oːr-a [imv.] 'to go; to go away; to depart' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 69, 868; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 35]. In addition, the ablaut variant akʼan- is used in imperf. & fut. with the iterative meaning 'to go away constantly'.
2) ɨqːˤ-a- ~ uqːˤ-a- [imperf., fut.] / h=akʼɨn [perf.] / h=akʼnʸ-e [imv.] 'to go; to go away' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 879; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 135, 355]. In addition, the ablaut variant h=akʼan- is used in imperf. with the iterative meaning 'to go constantly; to go away constantly'.
Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1999] does not permit to make a definite choice between these two verbs, so we are forced to treat them as synonyms, including both imperfective and perfective stems (that is, three synonymous items are proposed for this slot: aˤlʸ=ha-, akʼɨn ~ h=akʼɨn, ɨqːˤ- ~ uqːˤ-).
Distinct from the ablaut verb h=ohar- [imperf., fut.] / h=ohur- [perf.] 'to walk' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878].
According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], the situation is similar to Mishlesh: there are two synonymous verbs for 'to go', one of them with polysemy: 'to go / to go away':
1) aˤl=h-a- [imperf., fut.] 'to go; to go away' / akʼɨn 'to go away' [perf.] / h=oːr-a [imv.] 'to go' / akʼnʸ-e [imv.] 'to go away' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73, 74; Dirr 1913: 136, 164, 176].
According to the data in [Makhmudova 2001] and [Ibragimov 1978], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / class=ɨx-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=rɨχ [imv.] / ma=class=ʁʷˤ [prohib.] / y=ix-a-s [fut.]. In imperf., with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
According to the data in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uqʼˤ-u-r- [imperf.] / class=ɨx-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=rɨχ [imv.] / ma=class=ʁʷˤ [prohib.]. In imperf., with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
Suppletive paradigm: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / class=ɨx-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=rɨχ [imv.] / ma=class=ʁʷˤ [prohib.]. In imperf., with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
RUT_NOTES:
A very irregular verb with two synonymous stems for the imperfective, but the paradigms generally coincide in all three dialects. Two imperf. stems are genetically related, r in =r=uʔ- is the old imperfective affix -r-.
Note the correspondence qʼˤ - ʔ in the perfective stems between Ixrek class=r=uqʼˤ-u-r- and Mukhad/Luchek class=r=uʔ-u-r- (the Ixrek form is confirmed in both [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 85] and [Ibragimov 1978: 215]). Such a correspondence is irregular; it is hard to explain Ixrek qʼˤ. Perhaps a contamination with the perfective stem y=iqʼ-ɨ-r 'to come' q.v. in Ixrek?
It must be noted that for the Khudig subdialect the following paradigm is quoted in [Shaumyan 1941: 148]: Ha-y- [imperf.] / χ-ina [perf.] / χ-i- [inf.] / yiχ [imv.]. Shaumyan's "ayin" in the imperfective stem probably covers ʢ (i.e. ʢa-y- or ʢaˤ-y-). This form is important for etymological analysis, see notes on Common Aghul.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73. Suppletive paradigm: baˤ-y- [imperf.] / š-une [perf.] / baˤ- [inf.] / yuχ [imv.] / ma=maˤ [prohib.]. The prohibitive ma=maˤ was assimilated from *ma=baˤ ~ *ma=waˤ.
In [Suleymanov 1993: 54], the following Keren infinitive (scil. imperfective) stem is quoted: ʢʷa- ~ ʕʷa- {гIвас} 'to go'. Probably the form from the Usug subdialect.
A highly irregular verb, although the suppletive paradigms generally coincide in the dialects. In all the dialects (or at least in Koshan, Keren, Gequn), with polysemy: 'to go / to come' in the imperfective and prohibitive forms.
The main etymological riddle is represented by the imperfective forms: Koshan waˤ- 'to go; to come', Gequn waˤ- 'to go; to come', Proper Aghul we-, but Keren baˤ- 'to go'. At least synchronically, these stems do not contain a prefix, cf. the Proper Aghul negative forms de=we 'you don't go' [Magometov 1970: 194 strophe III], da=we-s 'not to go' [Tarlanov 1994: 148] (with the prefixed negative morpheme dV, not infixed).
The correspondence initial Keren b- : Koshan, Gequn, Proper Aghul w- is irregular, because normally Proto-Aghul *b (< Proto-Lezgian *pː, *mː) yields b in all dialects in the initial position [Suleymanov 1993: 66]. Although, indeed, medial and final Proto-Aghul *b shifts to w in Koshan, Gequn, Tsirkhe (subdialect of Proper Aghul), it is normally retained as b in other subdialects of Proper Aghul as well as in the Keren dialect [Suleymanov 1993: 66; Magometov 1970: 36; NCED: 125].
The external Lezgian etymology of Proto-Aghul imperfective waˤ- 'to go; to come' is not entirely clear. It is proposed in [NCED: 134, 572-573] that Aghul waˤ- (Keren baˤ-)originates from Proto-Lezgian *ʔiqːʷˤä- with the unique case of the development *qːʷˤ > Aghul wˤ (Keren bˤ), which does not seem apt per se.
We assume a more complicated scenario. The Proto-Aghul imperfective stem for 'to go; to come' indeed goes back to the Proto-Lezgian root *ʔiqːʷˤä-, where *qːʷˤ regularly yielded a uvular or laryngeal (ʁʷ, ʕ or ʢ depending on a dialect, see [NCED: 132-133]). This sound is retained in the prefixless imperfective form in the Khudig Koshan, Keren, Fite and Proper Aghul dialects. In other dialects (including the Burshag subdialect of Koshan) the perfective stem was modified with a labial prefix, which supplanted the initial laryngeal/uvular, - as a result, forms of the shapes waˤ- and baˤ- arose in individual dialects. The origin and the phonetic nature of this labial prefix are unclear, but most probably it is related to the well-attested Aghul verbal spatial prefix f= 'near', for which see [Magometov 1970: 158 ff.; Suleymanov 1993: 161]. The semantics 'near' fits the attested meaning of imperfective waˤ- ~ baˤ 'to go; to come' rather well. On the other hand, cf. the prefix w= '?' in the Koshan verb w=aχʷa- 'to speak' (see notes on 'to say').
Such a scenario implies the following archaisms in individual Aghul dialects: the prefixless root is retained in the Khudig (subdialect of Koshan; Ha-y-, i.e. ʢaˤ-y-?), Keren (ʢʷa- ~ ʕʷa-), Fite (ʁʷˤa-) and Proper Aghul (Tsirkhe, Khpyuk ʢʷa- ~ ʕʷa-) imperfective stem, as well as in the prohibitive stem in Burshag (subdialect of Koshan; ma=ʁa ~ ma=ʢe, the loss of pharyngealization and the fluctuation ʁ~ʢ are not clear, however).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: aqːˤ-ˈ [imperf., inf.] / wuš- [perf.] 'to go' [Uslar 1979: 595, 631, 1002] (in [Dirr 1905: 156, 230], quoted as aʁˤ- [imperf., inf.] / uš- [perf.] 'to go' - either actually a form from some Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr's records).
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aqːˤ-ˈ [imperf., inf.] / ˈuš- [perf.] {аьбкъюв} with polysemy: 'to go / to go away' [Genko 2005: 22].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 73. Suppletive paradigm: aʁˤ-ˈ [imperf., inf.] / ˈuš- [perf.] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], the perfective root is quoted as ʁuš-, but apparently ʁ= is just the regular perfective prefix).
For the Khiv subdialect two semantically close verbs are documented: aʁˤ-ˈ [imperf., inf.] / ˈuš- [perf.] {аьгъюб} 'to go (backwards)' [Genko 2005: 22] and ʁˤ=aʁ-ˈ [imperf., inf.] / ˈuš- [perf.] {гъягъюб} 'to go (with a certain purpose); to go away' [Genko 2005: 46] (initial ʁˤ= is a spatial prefix).
There is also the plain Khiv stem ʁˤa- 'to go', attested in two morphologically strange forms: imperf. ʁˤa-ra- (< *ʁˤa-ura-?), inf. ʁˤa-b {гъяб} (< *ʁˤa-ub?) [Genko 2005: 46; Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 119]. Apparently this is a rare verb.
The suppletive paradigms generally coincide across dialects, although the imperfective stem tends to be additionally modified with the spatial prefix ʁˤ= in Southern Tabasaran.
The imperfective stem aɢˤ- / aqːˤ- / aʁˤ- is obviously related to Tabasaran ɢˤ- / qːˤ- / ʁˤ- 'to come' q.v.; therefore, it is natural to analyze aQˤ- as a=Qˤ- with the spatial prefix a= (i.e. ʔa=) 'in'. Cf. also the prefixless stem ʁˤa- in Southern Tabasaran (Khiv), if Genko's data are reliable.
Note the different treatment of Lezgian *ɬʷ in Uslar's dialect (š before old front vowels) and literary language (f). The same development is observed in the Yarki dialect (Kyuri group): Nyutyug šu- 'to go' [Meylanova 1964: 76]. The reflex š is not noted in [NCED: 148 f.].
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiqːʷˤä-1
NCED: 572. Distribution: The situation with Lezgian basic verbs of motion, 'to go' and 'to come', is rather tangled. Almost all the languages possess suppletive paradigms with two etymologically different stems: imperfective and perfective (frequently, a third imperative stem is also present). It is possible to regard this suppletion as a late innovation of areal origin, but there are actually no reasons not to project the pattern of lexical opposition between imperfective and perfective stems onto the Proto-Lezgian level.
The following protoroots are attested with the generic meaning 'to go' in Lezgian languages:
'TO GO'
Proto-CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ʔiqːʷˤä- [NCED: 572]
imperf.
imperf./perf.
imperf.
imperf.
perf.
imperf.
imperf.
*ʔVʔʷV(r)- [NCED: 1016]
imperf.
imperf.
*ʔišːä- [NCED: 656]
perf.
perf.
*ʔiɬʷe [NCED: 664]
perf.
perf.
perf.
imperf./perf.
*ʔa(r)kʼɨ [NCED: 267]
perf.
?
*ac- perf.
The following protoroots are attested with the generic meaning 'to come' in Lezgian languages:
'TO COME'
Proto-CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ʔiqːʷˤä-
imperf.
perf.
imperf.
imperf.
imperf.
*ʔVʔʷV(r)-
perf.
imperf./perf.
imperf.
*ʔarƛːe- [NCED: 422]
imperf.
perf.
*ʔišːä-
imperf.
imperf.
*ʔiɬʷe
perf.
perf.
perf.
*ʔirqʼär- [NCED: 268]
perf.
?
atːˈa- perf.
It must be noted that in [NCED: 268], the Udi imperfective stems of the verbs 'to go' and 'to come' are connected to Lezgian *ʔirqʼär-, because the authors were not aware of the Udi and Caucasian Albanian forms that retain -ʁ-. Now this etymology can be rejected. The obvious source of the Caucasian Albanian-Udi verbs for 'to go' and 'to come' is Lezgian *ʔiqːʷˤä-. Not a single Udi etymology with Lezgian *qːʷˤ has been proposed by the authors of [NCED], but the development *qːʷˤ > Udi ʁ(ˤ) is system-predictable, see the table in [NCED: 132]; further, Udi ʁ > 0 in certain positions. The main difficulty is the absence of pharyngealization in the Caucasian Albanian and Udi forms, but, as noted in [NCED: 143], the old pharyngealization can sporadically get lost in Udi (exact conditions are not clear).
The Proto-Lezgian imperfective stem can be safely reconstructed as *ʔiqːʷˤä- with polysemy: 'to go / to come'. It retains the original meaning in both outliers (Udi, Archi) and in some Nuclear Lezgian lects. In the rest of Nuclear Lezgian languages, it got superseded with various verbs of movement. It is theoretically possible that the meanings 'to go' and 'to come' were discriminated with the help of spatial prefixes in Proto-Lezgian (cf. the relict prefix in the Caucasian Albanian-Udi imperfective stem for 'to come').
Reconstruction of perfective stems is less obvious. There are two formally equivalent candidates for the Proto-Lezgian perfective stem 'to go': (1) *ʔiɬʷe, which can be reliably reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgic perfective 'to go', (2) Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi *ac-. The latter root seems, however, etymologically isolated within both Lezgian and North Caucasian, and therefore, we tentatively posit *ʔiɬʷe as the Proto-Lezgian perfective 'to go'.
The best candidate for the Proto-Lezgian perfective stem 'to come' seems to be *ʔVʔʷV(r)-, which retains its basic meaning in Udi and West Lezgic (Rutul, Tsakhur).
Numerous semantic shifts between verbs of movement in individual Lezgian languages require additional investigation.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the loss of pharyngealization in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root, attested with several grades of Ablaut. Reconstructed as the imperfective stem with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.
Several terms enter into competition and the sources vary in definitions. The most generic word is apparently gam {гам}; this is glossed as 'hot, warm' in [Gukasyan 1974: 105; Mobili 2010: 121] (with examples: "hot (warm) water", "hot weather"), simply as 'warm' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686], but as 'hot' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
A second candidate is the etymologically obscure küvä 'warm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245] (opposed to gam 'hot') = kːüvä 'warm, not hot' [Mobili 2010: 179] (with an example: "warm, not hot water"). It seems that küvä ~ kːüvä denotes 'warmish, tepid' rather than generic 'warm'.
Distinct from bačːukː {бачIукI}, glossed as 'hot, inflamed, set on fire' in [Gukasyan 1974: 72; Mobili 2010: 43] and simply as 'hot' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685] (opposed to gam 'warm').
Nidzh-Vartashen gam is borrowed from Persian garm 'warm, hot'.
Caucasian Albanian: Neither 'warm' nor 'hot' are attested.
Archi:ʁilˈi-tːu-class-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 312, 384; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685; Mikailov 1967: 179. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant ʁili-du-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb ʁilˈi 'to be warm', borrowed from Lak ʁili- 'warm' (the Archi term is unjustifiedly labeled as "no evidence for borrowing" in [Chumakina 2009]). Cf. examples: "Let's wash the heads with hot (scil. warm) water' [Mikailov 1967: 53], "This fur coat is warm" [Mikailov 1967: 71].
Distinct from ƛʼˈeˤr-tːu-class 'hot' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 269, 356; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685; Mikailov 1967: 189] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant ƛʼeˤr-du-class is also quoted), a participle of the stative verb ƛʼeˤr 'to be hot'. However, the only discovered example is not very representative: "A bullet from your rusty pistol will not get our hot hearts" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 11]. As convincingly proposed in [NCED: 640], Archi ƛʼeˤr was borrowed from Avar ƛʼːer- ‘to be underroast; to be burned through; to burn oneself’ with expressive pharyngealization.
Distinct from kʼˈaːkʼa-tːu-class 'hot (of weather)' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 263], a participle of the stative verb kʼˈaːkʼa 'to be hot (of weather)'.
Distinct from gɨ-ra 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245], an old derivative from uga- 'to burn' q.v. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685] qːizʁina is quoted for 'hot', borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'.
Meylanova 1984: 141, 245; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685. According to [Meylanova 1984: 141, 209, 245] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 685], with polysemy: 'warm / hot'.
Distinct, however, from qːɨzʁɨn 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245], which is translated in [Meylanova 1984: 93] as 'burning hot'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 876, 900; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but quoted in examples, e.g., [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 181 sub yiʁ].
Distinct from isaχa-n ~ hisaχa-n ~ hicaχa-n [Kibrik et al. 1999: 433, 442, 839, 877, 892] ~ hicːʸaχa-n [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 144] 'hot'. Phonetic fluctuation (cf. also Gelmets Tsakhur hicːaχa-nʸ below) could point to a loanword, although the source of borrowing is unidentified (in [NCED: 415], however, it is proposed to connect this substantive to the Tabasaran deverbal adjective 'hot', see notes on Tabasaran 'warm').
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229, 402; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 686. Applied to both objects ('warm') and weather ('hot, warm').
Distinct from rikʼ-e-rä-dɨ ~ rikʼ-ed 'hot' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 216, 333] (in [Ibragimov 1978: 201, 209-210] consistently quoted as rɨkʼ-ed, but once as rikʼ-ed).
Distinct from bikʼer-dɨ 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].
RUT_NOTES:
Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Common Rutul siɣ-ɨd 'warm' (si-class-ɣ-ɨd) looks like a regular participle from an unattested verb *siɣ- '?' (apparently *s=iɣ- with the prefix s-, see [NCED: 640]).
The term for 'hot' is derived from the old root *class=ikʼʷ- 'to burn' (retained in the prefixed form as l=ikʼʷ- 'to burn' q.v.), where initial b- is the fossilized class 3 exponent, and initial r- is the fossilized class 1/2 exponent. Note, however, that the delabialization kʼʷ > kʼ and especially the Ixrek variant in -ɨ- are unclear.
Distinct from Tpig kuče-f 'hot' [Suleymanov 2003: 106].
AGX_NOTES:
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are the adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92], [Shaumyan 1941: 45]. Theoretically the Common Aghul term for 'warm' (*ʔiwqːˤV- as proposed in [LEDb: #150]) can be related to Tabasaran urqːˤu- 'warm' q.v., although details are unclear. The Common Aghul terms for 'hot' (kuče-) is of unknown origin.
Similarly in the Khanag subdialect: wanˈi 'warm' [Uslar 1979: 621, 1007; Dirr 1905: 158, 244], applied to both objects and atmosphere. Distinct from the more specific Khanag term urqːˤu-mˈi 'warm' [Uslar 1979: 938, 1007], which is applied only to water. Distinct from Khanag r=i-class-ci-rˈi 'hot' [Uslar 1979: 895, 992] (in [Dirr 1905: 203], quoted as ri-class-cu-ri, ri-class-c-ri 'hot').
For the Khyuryuk subdialect two words with the meaning 'warm' are documented: wanˈi {вани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 32], urqːˤu-mˈi {уьркъюми} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 159] - the difference is unknown. Distinct from Khyuryuk r=i-class-ci-rˈi {рибцири} 'hot' [Genko 2005: 132].
For the Khiv subdialect two words with the meaning 'warm' are documented: manˈi {мани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 117] and ʁ=urʁˤ-mˈi {гъюргъми} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 45] - the difference is unknown. Distinct from Khiv urc-rˈu {урцру} 'hot' [Genko 2005: 156].
Cf. in the Tinit subdialect: manˈi {мани} 'warm' [Genko 2005: 117] (application is unknown).
In Literary Tabasaran the basic term for 'warm' is manˈi {мани} [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 223] (applied to both objects and atmosphere). Distinct from the more specific ʁ=urʁˤ-mˈi {гъюргъми} 'warmish' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 119] (applied only to water). Two words for 'hot' exist in the literary language: inherited yi-class-c-rˈu {йибцру} 'hot (e.g., tea)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184] and borrowed ʁizʁˈin {гъизгъин} 'hot' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 112] (< Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot').
TAB_NOTES:
The adjective mani ~ wani is the basic Common Tabasaran term for 'warm'. Its etymology, proposed in [NCED: 807], however, should be rejected, because Tabasaran wani (assimilated mani) most likely represents a borrowing from the neighboring Dargi lects, cf. Meusisha wana-sːi, Gubden wana-y, Urari, Amuq wana-ci, etc. 'warm', which actually originate from Dargi *gʷana- (not *wana- pace [NCED: 807]), as proven by cognate forms from other Dargi lects, like Barshamay gʷana-ce, Gir gʷana-ci, etc. 'warm' (all Dargi forms have been taken from R. O. Mutalov's unpublished field records of the 1990s).
The meaning or application Tabasaran urqːˤu-mi (Northern) / ʁ=urʁˤ-mi (Southern) 'warm' are currently narrower than these of mani, although apparently urqːˤu-mi / ʁ=urʁˤ-mi represent the inherited Proto-Tabasaran term for 'warm'. These Tabasaran forms look like an old deverbal formation (cf. esp. the perfective prefix ʁ= in the Southern form), but the original verb seems unattested elsewhere. Apparently these adjectives are cognate to the basic Aghul adjective for 'warm' q.v., for which the proto-form *ʔiwqːˤV- is proposed in [LEDb: #150]. However, the details are not entirely clear (fossilized class infix -w- is Aghul?).
The common Tabasaran expression for 'hot' is r=i-class-ci-ri (Northern) / yi-class-c-ru (Southern). These are synchronic participles from a verb that is attested as Literary Tabasaran yic- {йибцуб} 'to boil (intrans.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184]. Initial r= in the Northern form can be a rare prefix or an archaic prefixed class exponent. On the contrary, Southern (Khiv) urc-ru 'hot' (u-r-c-rˈu with the fossilized class infix -r-) is synchronically derived from the verb for 'to roast grain', attested in Southern Tabasaran as Khiv urc-ˈ {урцуб} [Genko 2005: 156] (i.e. u-r-c- with the fossilized class infix), Kondik uc-ˈ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 140]. Both verbal roots - yic- 'to boil (intrans.)', uc- 'to roast grain' - can be etymologically related via certain ablaut patterns, cf. [NCED: 415].
Uslar 1896: 589, 635. Applied to both objects and weather. No terms for 'hot' have been found in [Uslar 1896].
The same in Literary Lezgi: čimˈi {чими} 'warm' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 370; Gadzhiev 1950: 844; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 528] (applied to both objects and weather). Distinct from various literary terms for 'hot': qːizmˈiš {къизмиш} 'hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 189; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 521] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzmɨš 'hot'); qːizʁˈin {къизгъин} 'hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 188; Haspelmath 1993: 502] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gɨzɣɨn 'hot'); kːˈu-da-y {кудай} with polysemy: 'hot / combustible / bitter' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 164; Gadzhiev 1950: 148] (participle from kːa- / kːu- 'to burn' q.v.); ifˈe-y, ifˈe-n-wa-y {ифей, ифенвай} 'very hot, incandesced' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 142; Gadzhiev 1950: 148; Haspelmath 1993: 521] (participles from ifˈe- {ифин} 'to become hot' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 143]).
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čmi 'warm' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245]. Distinct from Khlyut yɨkˈɨr 'hot' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245] of unclear origin (pace [NCED: 869], this form can hardly be paronymous to Lezgi kːa- / kːu- 'to burn', because yɨkɨr is transcribed with aspirated -k-, not -kː- by Kibrik & Kodzasov).
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔiƛːVr-1
NCED: 640. Distribution: A rather unstable word. Provisionally we fill this slot with the verbal root *ʔiƛːVr-, which yielded participle-like formations with the meaning 'warm' in Kryts (South Lezgian) and Rutul (West Lezgian), but was lost in the rest of the languages. The whole reconstruction, however, does not seem very reliable due to scantiness of data.
The second candidate is the verb *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr- [NCED: 1036], from which the participle 'warm / hot' was formed in Budukh. The original meaning of *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr- was something like 'to get heated' (cf. notes on 'to burn').
Etymologically unclear words for 'warm' are attested in Tsakhur (qːˤuma- ~ ʁˤuma-), Aghul (uʕa- ~ ibʢa- ~ iwa- ~ ʁˤabi-), Lezgi (čimi).
Superseded with loanwords in Udi (< Persian), Archi (< Lak), Tabasaran (< Dargi).
Various Lezgian terms for 'hot' normally represent either participles from verbs for 'to burn' vel sim. or loanwords (< Azerbaijani, Avar).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 202; Genko 2005: 188. In [Genko 2005], erroneously labeled as the Khanag form. Synchronically, suppletive and ablaut paradigm: šay [abs.] / šitːˈi- [obl.].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: šar [abs.] / širˈi- [obl.] 'water' [Uslar 1979: 980, 990; Dirr 1905: 220, 225]. The same in the Khyuryuk and Kumi subdialects: šar [abs.] / širˈi- [obl.] {шар} 'water' [Genko 2005: 189].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: šed [abs.] / štːi- [obl.] {шед} 'water' [Genko 2005: 189]. The same in Tinit: šad {шад} (paradigm is unknown) 'water' [Genko 2005: 188].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: šid [abs.] / štu- [obl.] {шид} 'water' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].
A suppletive paradigm is retained in both dialects: *ya-n [abs., erg.] / *b=eš-i [gen. with a fossilized class prefix] / *ya- [obl.].
Caucasian Albanian: ža-n [abs., erg.] / beši [gen.] / ža- [obl.] [Gippert et al. 2008: II-37, IV-17]. No clusivity. The exact phonetic value of the first sign ž cannot be established, in [Gippert et al. 2008: II-13] it is tentatively treated as a post-alveolar fricative ž. Apparently etymological cognates to the Udi forms.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 259; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 119; Kibrik 1994: 320; Mikailov 1967: 82; Dirr 1908: 27. Exclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. Suppletive paradigm: nen [abs., erg.] / class=olˈo [gen.] / class=el [dat.] / lˈa- [obl.].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 221; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 285, 367; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125; Kibrik 1994: 320. Inclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl., formed from the suppletive (and somewhat levelled up) paradigm of the exclusive pronoun plus the morpheme chain -(a)-class-u: nˈen-tʼ-u [abs.] / nˈen-a-class-u [erg.] / lˈa-...-class-u [gen., obl.] / class=ˈel-a-class-u [dat.]. The final morpheme -u is etymologically the 2nd p. sg. pronoun 'thou' (q.v.). Medial -tʼ- in the absolutive form is the class 4 exponent [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 55, 63; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 125].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Saadiev 1994: 420; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 119. Exclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. It must be noted that in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] this is erroneously quoted as the only pronoun of the 1st p. pl. without clusivity. Paradigm: ži-n [abs., erg.] / žäʕä-ǯ [gen.] / že-s [dat.]. In [Saadiev 1994] the genitive is quoted as že ~ žä, the dative - as že-s ~ žä-s (apparently forms from different dialects).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 130; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 518; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ši [abs., erg.] / yiš-ɨn [gen.] / ša-s [dat.]. No clusivity.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ši [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Schulze 1997: 37] (in [Schulze 1997], the variant šːi is also quoted, which seems an error). Paradigm: ši [abs., erg.] / yiš-in [gen.]. No clusivity.
Dirr 1912: 36; Ibragimov 1978: 77, 212; Alekseev 1994a: 225; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ye [abs., erg.] / yix-dɨ [gen.] / ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity. However, it is reported in [Makhmudova 2001: 169] that there are special inclusive forms of the shape ye-waˤ, literally 'we' + 'you (pl.)' - apparently a very recent introduction, still unknown to the previous authors.
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 434; Ibragimov 1978: 212; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 118. Paradigm: ži ~ yi [abs.] / yix-dɨ [gen.] / žä-tːi (že-tːi) ~ ye-tːi [erg.] / žä-s (že-s) ~ ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity. Forms of two old paradigms ži ~ yi occur as free variants in modern Ixrek, although ži is more frequently used [Ibragimov 1978: 211].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222. Paradigm: ye [abs.] / ixʸ-dɨ [gen.] / ye-s [dat.]. No clusivity.
RUT_NOTES:
In the Shinaz & Muxrek dialects generic 'we' sounds as ži [abs.] / iš-dɨ [gen.] [Ibragimov 1978: 153, 177, 258; Dirr 1912: 36].
In the light of external Lezgian evidence one can safely reconstruct the following clusive opposition for Proto-Rutul: *yä 'we (incl.)' / *ži 'we (excl.)'. This formal opposition was eliminated in all known dialects. Normally one of the stems - *yä or *ži - survived with the generic meaning 'we', although in Ixrek both pronouns are still used as synonyms for generic 'we'.
In the Borch-Khnov dialect the semantic opposition of clusivity is retained [Ibragimov 1978: 258, 263], but the system was seriously rebuilt. Both pronouns of the 1st p. pl. are formed on the basis of *yä 'we (incl.)': ya-n-ur 'we (incl.)' / yu-qˤn-är 'we (excl.)' with the help of the common plural exponent -Vr. The morpheme -n- in ya-n-ur 'we (incl.)' may in fact be an old exponent; thus, the chain ya-n- originates directly from Proto-Lezgian *ᴌä-n 'we (incl.)' [NCED: 786]. The pronoun yu-qˤn-är 'we (excl.)' additionally contains an archaic plural exponent -qˤ(u)n- [Ibragimov 1978: 242, 264 f.]; the vowel -u- in yu-qˤn-är is probably the result of the reduction -qˤun- > -qˤn- in the adjacent syllable and, additionally, may be due to influence on the part of the 2nd p. pl pronoun wu-qˤn-är 'you'. It is interesting that after such an agglutinative pattern has been introduced in the Borch-Khnov dialect, the plain *yä 'we (incl.)' shifted to the singular number: Borch-Khnov yi 'I' [Ibragimov 1978: 260 ff.].
All the dialects retain the etymologically relevant clusivity opposition. The historical shape VC of the genitive forms (both exclusive and inclusive) is retained only in Koshan; in the other dialects the genitive has been levelled after the rest of the paradigm. The shape VC of the dative forms in the Koshan dialect (iča-s, iša-s) can also be an archaism.
No clusivity in any dialects. The genitive form ži is attested at least in the Tsinit subdialect of the Yarki dialect (Kyuri group) [Meylanova 1964: 114], Qurah dialect (Kyuri group) [Meylanova 1964: 157], Khlyut and Khuryug subdialects of the Akhty dialect (Samur group) [Meylanova 1964: 299] (for the Khlyut data see above). In the bulk of Lezgi dialects ži was transformed into či under the influence of other paradigmatic forms.
Genitive ži can reflect the Lezgian protoform *class=iǯ [NCED: 1089] with the deaffricativization *-ǯ > -ž in the final position and further levelling *iž > ži after the rest of paradigm. Alternatively, it is possible to treat ži as a retention of the Proto-Lezgian pronoun *ᴌä-n 'we (incl.)' (reflexes of the Proto-Lezgian voiced affricates, postulated specially for personal pronouns, are generally irregular and unique, see [NCED: 143]).
Proto-Lezgian:*ǯi-n2
NCED: 1089. Distribution: Two pronominal paradigms for the 1st p. pl. are to be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian:
It can be easily seen that the Proto-Lezgian clusive opposition is postulated on the basis of some Nuclear Lezgian lects (namely Kryts, Aghul, Tabasaran, and to a lesser degree Rutul). In the other languages only one of the pronouns has survived or, as in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, both pronouns were merged into one paradigm.
It must be noted that the synchronic clusive opposition is also observed in Archi and Mukhad Rutul. In Proto-Archi, *ǯi-n 'we (excl.)' was completely lost, and *Łä-n 'we (incl.)' became the only pronoun 'we (excl./incl.)'. However, clusivity has been recently reintroduced: *Łä-n has acquired the exclusive meaning, whereas the modern Archi inclusive pronoun represents a compound 'we + thou'. The same process has recently taken place in Mukhad Rutul, where the new inclusive pronoun is a compound: 'we (*Łä-) + thou'.
The ergative form normally coincides with the absolutive in all the lects, except for Mikik Tsakhur (secondarily derived from the oblique form due to analogy with other personal pronouns) and Lezgi (secondarily derived from the absolutive form). Thus, we reconstruct the homonymy "absolutive-ergative" for Proto-Lezgian.
The majority of the lects demonstrate the suffixal -n in the abs.-erg. form. Exceptions are Tsakhur and non-Borch-Khnov Rutul: in both cases we apparently deal with secondary analogy with other personal pronouns.
In Gelmets Tsakhur and Borch-Khnov Rutul, forms of the pronoun 'we' can be secondarily modified with synchronic plural suffixes.
Reconstruction shape: The voiced affricates *ǯ and *Ł were specially introduced into the Proto-Lezgian reconstruction in order to explain unique consonant correspondences in the given personal pronouns [NCED: 143]. Archi abs.-erg. ne-n clearly goes back to Proto-Archi *le-n via assimilation. Note the Caucasian Albanian development *Ł > ž (the idea that Caucasian Albanian ž-forms originate from *ǯi-n 'we (excl.)' is less likely, because one could expect Caucasian Albanian abs.-erg. **ži-n, rather than ža-n).
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal roots.
Authier 2009: 43. Inclusive pronoun of the 1st p. pl. Paradigm: yi-n ~ yi [abs., erg.] / ya [gen.] / ya-z [dat.]. Note the secondary polysemy: 'we (incl.) / you (pl.)'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222; Magometov 1970: 101; Shaumyan 1941: 56; Suleymanov 1993: 126; Suleymanov 2003: 188. Inclusive pronoun 'we'. Paradigm: ši-n [abs., erg.] / iša-s ~ ša-s [dat.] / iš ~ iš-ir [gen.]. The dative form ša-s is from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], other sources quote iša-s. It must be noted that in the summary table in [Magometov 1970: 101], the Burshag absolutive-ergative form is quoted as xi-n, which is an obvious typo; other sources confirm ši-n.
The same in the Khudig subdialect: ši-n [abs., erg.] / iše-s [dat.] / iš [gen.] 'we (incl.)' [Magometov 1970: 101].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 222. Inclusive pronoun 'we'. Paradigm: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ixˈu [erg.] / ix [gen.]. The ergative form ixˈu can be a typo for expected **uxˈu.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ix [gen.] 'we (incl.)' [Magometov 1965: 169]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: uxˈu [abs., obl.] / ix [gen.] {ухьу} 'we (incl.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 432; Zhirkov 1948: 107].
Gukasyan 1974: 120, 230, 276, 279; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 471; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Mobili 2010: 103. Quoted as hekːa in [Schulze-Fürhoff 1994]; as hikä with plain k in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] (apparently a typo). In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754] 'what?' is erroneously glossed as he (confused with he 'which?' [Gukasyan 1974: 119]).
A contracted allegro form kːä {кIаь} can also be used [Gukasyan 1974: 279; Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 471].
Suppletive paradigm: hi-kːä [abs.] / he-tː- [erg., obl.] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228] the oblique stem again with a probable typo: he-t-).
Interrogative attributive pronoun *e 'which?, what kind of?' (Nidzh he, Vartashen e [Gukasyan 1974: 119]) with an unclear element -kːa in the absolutive and the pronominal stem extension -tː- in oblique forms. Note a laryngeal prothesis in Nidzh hi- ~ he-.
Caucasian Albanian: ya [Gippert et al. 2008: II-39, IV-18]. Apparently a cognate of Udi hi- / e-.
Distinct from Caucasian Albanian ha=nay 'which?' [Gippert et al. 2008: II-39, IV-25] (ha- is the common emphatic deictic morpheme).
Meylanova 1984: 161, 193; Talibov 2007: 126; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228. In [Alekseev 1994: 269], erroneously quoted as šis.
According to [Talibov 2007: 126] and [Alekseev 1994: 269], the archaic paradigm is ši [abs.] / čǝ- [obl.]. Currently this is being superseded by regular ši [abs.] / šiy- [obl.], see [Talibov 2007: 126; Meylanova 1984: 193].
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228] the paradigm is quoted as ši [abs.] / han-ɨ- [erg., dat.] / han-u [gen.]; the oblique forms have been erroneously copied from the entry 'who?' q.v.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Dirr 1913: 39. Paradigm: hi-žoː [abs.] / nʸi-ši- [obl.]. The absolutive variants hu=žoː and žoː come from [Dirr 1913], where a variant with -ǯ- instead of -ž- is also attested (in [Dirr 1913] forms of this pronoun are accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -nʸe).
Distinct from Mikik nʸe-n 'which?' [Dirr 1913: 39].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754. In [Ibragimov 1990: 195], 'what?' is quoted as ha=ǯu {гьаджу}, which seems suspicious (ǯ for expected ž). The final element -way is unclear.
TKR_NOTES:
We prefer to treat initial hV= as an additional interrogative morpheme that does not represent the main meaning here (cf. the Mikik variants hi=žoː ~ žoː and the pronoun 'who?': ha=šːu ~ hu=šːiː).
Dirr 1912: 41; Ibragimov 1978: 81, 214; Makhmudova 2001: 178; Alekseev 1994a: 225. Paradigm: ši-w [abs.] / hi-di- [obl.]. In [Makhmudova 2001] & [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 754], the direct stem is quoted as šɨ-w {шыв}: either an error or the result of the influence of wɨ-š 'who?'.
Distinct from Mukhad šu-dɨ 'which? (который?)' and hi-l-dɨ 'which? (какой?)' [Dirr 1912: 41-42].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: fu [abs.] / f-čːi- [obl.] 'what?' [Magometov 1965: 181]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fu [abs.] / f-ti- [obl.] 'what?' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 433; Zhirkov 1948: 104].
Uslar 1896: 75. Paradigm: wu-č [abs.] / kːü-, kːʷe- [obl.]. Distinct from Gyune hi 'which?' [Uslar 1896: 77].
The same in Literary Lezgi: wu-č [abs.] / kːü-, kːʷe- [obl.] {вуч} 'what?' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 192].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut wi-š [abs.] / čü- [obl.] 'what?' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228].
See also notes on 'who?'.
Proto-Lezgian:*hi1
NCED: 491. Distribution: Detailed semantic reconstruction of the entire variety of Lezgian interrogative morpheme is hardly possible. The basic data can be summarized as follows (we exclude the prefixal "emphatic" morpheme *ha- [NCED: 486], which often modifies various pronominal stems in Lezgian lects):
'WHAT? / WHO?'
CA-Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ya
ya- / e-kːa / hi-kːä what (← which)
*hi- [NCED: 491]
hi-nˈi- [obl.] what
hi-ǯoː [abs.] what
hi- [obl.] what
hi-na- ~ ha-na- [obl.] who
hi which
*šʷi [NCED: 350]
ši [abs.] what
ši [abs.] what
nʸi-ši- [obl.] what
ši-w [abs.] what šu-dɨ which
*šːi [NCED: 986]
šu, ha-šu who
ha-šːu [abs.], ša-w- [obl.] who
wɨ-š [abs.] who
fi-š [abs.] / še- [obl.] who
fu-ž [abs.] / ši-li- [obl.] who
wu-ž [abs.] who
*čV ?
či- [obl.] what
čǝ- [obl.] what
*čːʷe [LEDb: #153]
hi-ǯoː [abs.] what
wu-č [abs.] / kːʷe- [obl.] what
*nay
ha-nay which
hˈa-ni [abs.] / hi-nˈi- [obl.] what; hˈa-n-nu- which
ä-nʕa-r [erg.] who
ha-n- [erg., obl.] who
nʸi-ši- [obl.] what nʸe-n which
hi-na- ~ ha-na- [obl.] who
naʔˈa- which
ni- [obl.] who
*wV ?
ša-w- [obl.] who
ši-wi [abs.] what; wɨ-š [abs.] who
*ɬːi ~ *ɬːʷi [NCED: 1062]
ɬːi, ɬːa- [erg., obl.] who
fi what; fi-š [abs.] who
fi what; fu-ž [abs.] who
wu-č [abs.] what; wu-ž [abs.] who
*kʷi [NCED: 709]
kʷi [abs.] who
*tV [LEDb: #216]
ti [abs.] who
tu [abs.] who
*lV ?
ha-li- [gen.] who; ha-l-ǯi which
hi-l-dɨ which
ha-l- [obl.] who
ši-li- [obl.] who
The following intermediate reconstructions for the Nuclear Lezgian subgroups could be proposed. East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi):
- *ɬːi ~ *ɬːʷi 'what?' (at least the absolutive form);
It must be noted that, as in the case of the demonstrative pronouns 'that' / 'this' q.v., the South Lezgian subgroup appears to be the most innovative.
The Proto-Lezgian pronoun 'who?' can be safely reconstructed as *šːi [NCED: 986], at least in the absolutive form. This stem is retained as 'who?' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in West & East Lezgian, on the other (in East Lezgian, the absolutive form of *šːi is secondarily modified with the Proto-East Lezgian pronoun *ɬːʷi 'what?'). It must be emphasized that the etymological opposition of two interrogative morphemes *šːi and *šʷi [NCED: 350, 986] does not seem very reliable. Actually, these two are only opposed in Tsakhur (ha-šːu [abs.], ša-w- [obl.] 'who?' vs. nʸi-ši- [obl.] 'what?'), whereas South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) ši [abs.] 'what?' and Rutul ši-w [abs.] 'what?' can be equally well explained as the descendants of *šːi.
The Proto-Lezgian morpheme *nay-, or even the chain *ha-nay- (with "emphatic" ha-),is a possible candidate for the Proto-Lezgian pronoun 'which?'. On the other hand, *ha-nay- could be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian oblique stem of 'who?' (South & East Lezgian). Thus, Caucasian Albanian ha-nay 'which?' might be the secondary semantic development 'who?' [obl.] > 'which?'. It is proposed in [NCED: 492] (following some of M. Alekseev's ideas) that *ha-nV- is an alternative oblique stem of interrogative *hi, but this solution seems unlikely to us (especially in the light of Caucasian Albanian ha-nay 'which?'). We prefer to treat *nay- (not *nV) as an independent morpheme.
Data on the pronoun 'what?' are the most discrepant. The Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi pronoun was probably *ya, which is attested in Caucasian Albanian as 'what?', but shifted to the meaning 'which?' in Udi (Nidzh he, Vartashen e; surprisingly, in modern Udi, the new expression for 'what?' is based on he ~ e 'which?'). This morpheme *ya seems isolated in Lezgian; note that, pace [NCED: 492], *ya has nothing to do with Lezgian *hi. The Archi-Nuclear Lezgian match, however, suggests that *hi- [NCED: 491] can be posited as the Proto-Lezgian oblique stem of 'what?'. No obvious candidate for the Proto-Lezgian direct stem 'what?' exists.
It should be noted that the morpheme *lV could actually be the oblique stem exponent, secondarily loaned from nominal paradigms.
Authier 2009: 67, 71, 204, 366, etc. Distinct from čʼebu 'blond' [Authier 2009: 67] (which is opposed to Alyk kuran 'red-haired' [Authier 2009: 221], borrowed from Azerbaijani kürän 'red-haired').
Dirr 1912: 136, 186; Ibragimov 1978: 30, 117; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 673. According to [Ibragimov 1978], polysemy: 'white / white of egg', which seems secondary (in [Dirr 1912: 136] 'white of egg' is quoted as ʁɨlʁ-ɨd ǯagʷar 'whiteness of egg').
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233. Note the gemination of -gʷ-, influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
RUT_NOTES:
Final -dɨ / -d is the attributive suffix.
Cf. the substantive liz, which is attested with the meaning ‘thread of white color’ in Ixrek [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180] and 'egg white' in Mukhad (Kiche subdialect) [Ibragimov 1978: 133]. From this stem was also derived Mukhad (Khnyukh subdialect): liz-äy {лизаьй} 'white sheep' [Ibragimov 1978: 140].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: liʒˈi 'white' [Uslar 1979: 841, 989; Dirr 1905: 193, 224]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: liʒˈi {лиззи} 'white' [Genko 2005: 114].
The same in other subdialects: Khiv lizˈi {лизи}, Tinit liʒˈi {лиззи} 'white' [Genko 2005: 114]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: lizˈi {лизи} 'white' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218].
TAB_NOTES:
The original substantive liz 'white of eye' is apparently retained in the literary pl.t. liz-g-ar 'white of eye' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 218], although the suffixal element -(V)g- is unclear.
The same in Literary Lezgi: lacːˈu {лацу} 'white' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 222; Gadzhiev 1950: 46; Haspelmath 1993: 497, 529].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut lacːˈɨ 'white' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 233].
Cf. the paronymous substantive: Gyune Lezgi laz [abs.] / lacː-ˈini- [obl.] 'white of eye; white of egg' [Uslar 1896: 496], Literary Lezgi laz [abs.] / lacː-ˈadi- [obl.] 'kaolin, china clay; white of eye; white of egg' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 219; Haspelmath 1993: 497].
Proto-Lezgian:*čʼʷVˤbä2
NCED: 378. Distribution: There are two candidates with comparable distribution for the status of Proto-Lezgian 'white': *čʼʷVˤbä- [NCED: 378] and *čːakːʷarV- [NCED: 332].
The stem *čʼʷVˤbä- means 'white' in Archi, but in Nuclear Lezgian it has changed its meaning: Budukh 'red-haired', Alyk Kryts 'blond' and finally Literary Lezgi bačʼ-ˈuχ 'pitted, pockmarked (of face)' [Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 118] (-aχ / -uχ is a rare substantive suffix). The main advantage of *čʼʷVˤbä- is that its external Dargi comparanda also denote 'white'.
The second candidate is *čːakːʷarV- [NCED: 332], which means 'white' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), Aghul. Formally, this could be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian term for 'white', although a late areal isogloss cannot be excluded, either. This stem is not attested in the rest of Lezgian languages, but possesses possible external (Andian) cognates with the meaning 'yellow'
In many Nuclear Lezgian lects, 'white' represents an adjective derived from the substantive *lacː, whose meaning was probably 'white of egg' or a more generic 'white color'. This substantive is attested in Rutul ('thread of white color; white of egg'), Lezgi ('white of eye; white of egg'), probably Tabasaran ('white of eye'); in Archi, only the stem lˈac-utː- 'iron' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 270] was retained, where the final -utː- is a fossilized plural exponent. The derivative adjective *lacːV- 'white' is present in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Tabasaran and Lezgi - the protoform *lacːV-, however, seems a phantom; rather, we are dealing with independent formations in individual lects according to a productive morphological pattern. It must be noted that in [NCED: 751], this stem is reconstructed as *lacːV- with the primary meaning 'a k. of bright metal', which should be rejected (although external North Caucasian comparanda do indeed point to the meaning 'a k. of metal').
Finally, in Udi, 'white' is expressed with the stem *maˤrcʼːɨ- [NCED: 552], whose original meaning was 'clear', as proven by its Archi, Nuclear Lezgian, as well as external North Caucasian cognates.
An etymologically unclear word for 'white' is attested in Caucasian Albanian (biki).
Meylanova 1984: 136, 193; Talibov 2007: 126; Alekseev 1994: 269; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228. Paradigm: tu [abs.] / han-ɨ- [erg., dat.] / han-u [gen.]. According to [Talibov 2007: 126], another variant of the paradigm is tu [abs.] / tun-u- [obl.] (Talibov suspects that this one is archaic, but it does not seem certain).
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], 'who?' is erroneously glossed as ši {ши} (actually 'what?' q.v.).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 139, 877; Ibragimov 1990: 107. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010]; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], erroneously quoted as wu=šu {вушу}. Paradigm: ha-šːu [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ha=šːu [Schulze 1997: 41] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228], quoted as hi=šːu, which can be a typo). Paradigm: ha-šːu [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Dirr 1913: 39. Paradigm: hu-šːiː [abs.] / ša-w- [obl.]. The absolutive variant ha=šːu (or ha=šːuː?) comes from [Dirr 1913] (in [Dirr 1913] forms of this pronoun are accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -ne).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Ibragimov 1990: 195. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the form is accompanied with the interrogative enclitic -yiy, which corresponds to the Mishlesh enclitic -yiː [Kibrik et al. 1999: 138]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 757], erroneously quoted as ha=šu-yiy {гьашуйий}.
TKR_NOTES:
We prefer to treat initial hV= as an additional interrogative morpheme that does not represent the main meaning here (cf. hi=ǯoː ~ hu=žoː ~ žoː ~ ha=ži- 'what?').
Muxrek dialect: wɨ-š [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.] [Ibragimov 1978: 178]. Borch-Khnov dialect: hu-š [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.] [Ibragimov 1978: 267] (in Ibragimov's table the absolutive form is erroneously quoted as wɨ-š).
Following [NCED: 986], we treat the direct stems wɨ-š, hu-š(i) as compounds of two pronominal morphemes. The Proto-Rutul paradigm of 'who?' was probably *wɨ-ši [abs.] / ha-l- [obl.]. The Borch-Khnov and Luchek absolutive from hu-š(i) looks like contraction < *ha-wɨ-ši (ha- has been added due to analogy with the oblique stem).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228; Magometov 1970: 113; Shaumyan 1941: 71; Suleymanov 1993: 131. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the suppletive paradigm is: fu-š [abs. sg.] / na- [obl. sg.] / fu-š-ar [abs. pl.] / še- [obl. pl.]. It must be noted that the singular oblique stem na- is quoted only in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. Other sources give the following, more simple, paradigm: fu-š [abs. sg.] / še- [obl. sg.] / fu-š-ar [pl.] / fu-š-ar- [obl. pl.].
The same in the Khudig subdialect: fu-š [abs.] / še- [obl.] 'who?' [Magometov 1970: 113].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: fu-ž [abs.] / š-li- [obl.] 'who?' [Magometov 1965: 181]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fu-ž [abs.] / š-li- [obl.] 'who?' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 433; Zhirkov 1948: 103].
TAB_NOTES:
Absolutive =ž and oblique ši- are etymologically related, originating from Lezgian *šːi [NCED: 986]. This morpheme is to be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran pronoun 'who?'. In the modern dialects, the absolutive form is proclitically modified with additional pronominal elements: fu- ('what?') and hu- (generic semantics). Nevertheless, following [NCED: 986], we formally treat the Tabasaran absolutive forms as compounds of two interrogative morphemes.
The same in Literary Lezgi: wu-ž [abs.] / ni- [obl.] {вуж} 'who?' [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 192].
The same paradigm of 'who?' in other dialects of the Kyuri and Quba groups. Yarki wu-ž [abs.] [Meylanova 1964: 95]. Qurah wu-ž [abs.] / ne-,ni- [obl.] [Meylanova 1964: 159]. Quba wu-ž [abs.] / na [erg.] / ni- [obl.] [Meylanova 1964: 405].
Various forms for 'who?' are attested in the dialects of the Samur group. Usukhchay subdialect of Doquzpara: hi 'who?' / hi-m 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 213]. Miskindzh subdialect of Doquzpara: fi 'who?' / fi-m 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 213]. Khlyut subdialect of Akhty: fˈi-mi [abs.] / ne- [obl.] 'who?' / wi-š [abs.] / čü- [obl.] 'what?' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 228].
In the Khuryug subdialect of Akhty, however, the system is identical to the Kyuri and Quba groups: Khuryug wɨ-ž 'who?' / wu-š 'what?' [Meylanova 1964: 298].
Distribution as well as external comparison suggest that compounds like wu-ž reflect the Proto-Lezgi form for 'who?'. Samur fi is etymologically related to wu- (< Lezgian *ɬːʷi [NCED: 148 f.]), but the second element of the compound was secondarily lost in some Samur subdialects. The main difficulty is why Khlyut Akhty has fi- in the pronoun 'who?' (= literary wu-), but wi- in 'what?' (= literary wu-), although this is apparently the same morpheme.
Usukhchay Doquzpara hi 'who?' originates from 'which?', cf. Literary Lezgi hi {гьи} 'which?' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 102].
Proto-Lezgian:*šːi1
NCED: 986. Distribution: See notes on 'what?'.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the u-vowel in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Tsakhur (according to [NCED: 986], this might be the reflex of the suffixal class exponent -w-).
Semantics and structure: Primary pronominal morpheme, used at least in the absolutive stem of the pronoun 'who?'.
Gukasyan 1974: 238, 239 (čuhuχ); Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60 (čuːχ); Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72 (čuːχ, čuhuχ); Mobili 2010: 84, 85 (ču, čuhuχ, čupuχ, čubuχ). Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Apparently forms like čuː-χ ~ čuh-uχ go back to ču-b-uχ with the Nidzh sporadic weakening VbV > VvV (for which see [Dzheiranishvili 1971: 277; Maisak 2008a: 150 f.]) and the further loss of -v- between rounded vowels. Mobili's ču and čupuχ look like back-formations or errors.
Distinct from diši 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220], borrowed from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
Gukasyan 1974: 238; Fähnrich 1999: 12; Dirr 1903: 22, 36, 92, 95; Schiefner 1863: 88; Schulze 2001: 266; Starchevskiy 1891: 499. The non-assimilated form čibuχ comes from [Starchevskiy 1891; Schiefner 1863] (in the latter source this is quoted as a variant of čubuχ). Polysemy: 'woman / wife'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *či (> ču before the labial b) with fossilized plural suffixes -b and -uχ. In both dialects the word is distinct from χuni {хуни} 'female (n.)' [Gukasyan 1974: 226; Mobili 2010: 151, 204].
Caucasian Albanian: χiʕu [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22, 51]. A suppletive paradigm: χiʕu [sg.] / či-b-uq [pl.] with the polysemy: 'woman / wife'. The form či-b-uq [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-36, 51] contains two plural suffixes: -b and -uq.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] the word äǯ is also quoted as a synonym for 'woman' - a loanword (with irregular sound correspondences) in Kryts & Budukh of unknown origin.
Distinct from xidil 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 73] erroneously quoted as χidil {хидил}).
Authier 2009: 26, 37, 39, 40, 44, 55, 56, 73, 75, 177, etc. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Historically χini-b with a fossilized plural suffix.
A second, significantly less frequent term for 'woman' is zanan, found in several examples [Authier 2009: 56, 111, 261, 307, 375]; it is ultimately borrowed from Persian zan, pl. zanaːn 'woman' (via Azerbaijani zänän 'woman'?).
A third term is heǯ 'woman', quoted once in [Authier 2009: 25], for which see notes on Kryts proper äǯ 'woman'.
Budukh:heǯ ~ ħeǯ {гьедж, хIедж}-1
Meylanova 1984: 40, 149, 212; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], quoted with h-; in [Meylanova 1984], with h- and ħ-. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Loanword of unknown origin, see notes on Kryts (proper).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 889, 893; Ibragimov 1990: 66; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 72. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 418 sub ɨˤlʸimnana]. Suppletive paradigm: xunašːe [sg.] / yed-aːr [pl.]. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'.
There also exists a second word for 'woman; wife': zaˤʔfa [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890] ~ zaˤʔifa [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 170], apparently borrowed from Iranian, ultimately from Arabic dˤaʕiːf 'weak'.
Distinct from xɨwɨlʸ 'female (n.)' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 381].
Historically xuna-šːe, where -šːe may originate from Proto-Lezgian *-ušː 'daughter' (thus in [NCED: 671]).
The suppletive plural form yed-aːr 'women', attested in non-Gelmets dialects, was borrowed from the paradigm for 'mother', although the forms 'women' and 'mothers' are synchronically opposed: Mishlesh yedʸ [sg.] / yedʸ-aːr [pl.] 'mother' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 879; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 161], Tsakhur-Kum yedʸ 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55], Mikik yedʸ [sg.] / yedʸ-aːr [pl.] 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55], Gelmets yedʸ 'mother' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 55]. Tsakhur yedʸ 'mother' originates from a good candidate for Proto-Lezgian term for 'mother' [NCED: 673].
A second term for 'woman' is zänähli {заьнаьгьли} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 118], which was borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani zän 'woman' (ultimately from Persian).
The suppletive paradigms coincide in all dialects. Final -dɨ in the singular stem is the attributive suffix. The origin of the Common Rutul plural form xɨl-V is not entirely clear. Perhaps xɨl-V goes back to *xɨdl-V < *xɨdɨl-V with reduction of the medial vowel and subsequent consonant assimilation.
In the Usug subdialect: xir 'woman' [Shaumyan 1941: 178], χumbe-f 'woman' [Shaumyan 1941: 196]. No known difference. Several textual examples for 'woman' have been found. Most of them contain χumbe-f: "The woman weaves a rug on the loom" [Shaumyan 1941: 36], "The woman winds thread on the spindle" [Shaumyan 1941: 37], and the section from the story about the bald man [Shaumyan 1941: 127]; one passage contains xir: "This woman knits good stockings"[Shaumyan 1941: 61].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60; Dirr 1907: 120, 173; Shaumyan 1941: 178. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. According to [Dirr 1907], with a suppletive paradigm: xir [sg.] / χamb-ar [pl.], levelled in the modern dialect, as follows from [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]: xir [sg.] / xir-ar [pl.].
Distinct from χambe-f 'female (n.)' [Dirr 1907: 150, 183], which shifted to the specific meaning 'unmarried woman' in the modern dialect [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60]. It must be noted that Gequn χambe-f is glossed as 'woman' in [Shaumyan 1941: 196] - apparently an inaccuracy.
Distinct from xidul-f 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220] (missing from [Dirr 1907]).
Distinct from Tpig χumbe-f 'female (n.)' [Suleymanov 2003: 176]. In archaic Tpig, however, χumbe-f meant 'woman' (probably with polysemy: 'woman / female (n.)'), as follows from the gloss and several textual examples, provided in [Shaumyan 1941: 36, 37, 85, 95, 196]: "The woman weaves a rug on the loom", "The woman winds thread on the spindle", "The woman carries water", "Stop the woman that carries water!'.
It seems that a suppletive paradigm - xir [sg.] / χumb-ar [pl.] - can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Aghul; the Keren, Gequn and Fite dialects retain this suppletion. Probably already in Proto-Aghul, χumbV- acquired the additional meaning 'female (n.)' (both sg. and pl.) and currently tends to supersede xir in the meaning 'woman (sg.)' (this process has already been completed in the Koshan dialect).
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: šiw ~ šːiw [sg.] / χuw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' [Uslar 1979: 952, 981, 993; Dirr 1905: 221, 228]; the singular form with tense šː is quoted by Dirr). Distinct from Khanag χibˈi 'of female sex', χibˈu-w 'female (n.)' [Uslar 1979: 950, 1005].
In the Khyuryuk subdialect, only χibˈu-w {хиби, хибув} 'female (n.)' [Genko 2005: 164] is documented.
The phonetically important paradigm šiw [abs. sg.] / šːwu- [obl. sg.] / χuw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' is also quoted in [Genko 2005: 190], but it is unknown which subdialect is covered under Genko's siglum "Л." (maybe the village Laka is mentioned, cf. [Genko 2005: 219], but Laka represents the Southern dialect, therefore the retention of tense šː is rather strange).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60. Synchronically suppletive paradigm: χpːi-r [sg.] / χʷpː-ar [pl.]. Cf. various terms for 'female (n.)': χpːi, applied to donkeys and bears; peʔˈi, applied to birds, ← peʔ 'hen'; χu̥nˈi-b (a typo for expected χˤu̥nˈi-b), applied to other animals, ← χˤu̥nˈi 'cow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: χpːi-r [sg.] / χpː-ˈar ~ χupː-ˈar [pl.] {хппир} 'woman', χpːi-b {хппи, хппиб} 'female (n.)', χpːˈi-šuw {хппишув} 'of female sex' [Genko 2005: 165, 166]. The latter is a compound of two roots, see šiw in other subdialects.
The same in other subdialects: Truf, Tinit χpːu-r {хппур} 'woman' [Genko 2005: 166].
In Literary Tabasaran, four terms for 'woman' exist, the difference is unknown. 1) χpi-r {хпир} 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317]; cf. the adjective χpi {хпи} 'female (in general)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317]. 2) šiw [sg.] / šiw-ˈar [pl.] 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349]; literary -šiw serves also as an ethnonymical suffix [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349] and is retained with the meaning 'woman' in the compound ahlˈi-šiw {агьлишив} 'elderly woman' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 49]. 3) χpˈi-šiw {хпишив} 'woman; wife' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317], literally 'female šiw' or 'she-šiw'. 4) dˈišahli {дишагьли} 'woman' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149], borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
TAB_NOTES:
It seems that šiw (some Northern data suggest the original variant šːiw, but it is not very reliable) can be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'woman' in the singular number, whereas Proto-Tabasaran χub- meant 'women [pl.]' (with various - regular or occasional - phonetic mutations in individual dialects, such as -b- > -w-, reduction of the unaccented vowel, χb > χpː ~ χʷpː, as well as secondary epenthesis χpː- > χupː-). The adjective χub-i- 'female' was regularly derived from the plural root. Variants of the latter stem χub-i-, regularly substantivized by the human class suffix -r, tend to supersede the singular šiw with the common development 'female (n.)' → 'woman'. This process is almost finished in the Southern dialect, where šiw is mostly retained as an ethnonymical suffix (see, however, the Literary Tabasaran and Khiv data above). Cf. in Southern Tabasaran the similar shift 'male (n.)' {U+2192} 'man' q.v.
Uslar 1896: 519, 611. Polysemy: 'woman / wife'. Paradigm: pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈa- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.]. Distinct from the specific term qʼew 'wife of the same husband (in relation to another wife)' [Uslar 1896: 526, 611].
The same in Literary Lezgi: pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈa- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.] {паб} 'woman / wife' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 256; Gadzhiev 1950: 199] (in [Haspelmath 1993: 500] glossed only as 'wife'). According to [Gadzhiev 1950: 199] and [Gadzhiev 1956: 110], this is the main word for 'woman' in the literary language. A second term with the meaning 'woman' is dˈišehli {дишегьли} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 113; Gadzhiev 1950: 199; Haspelmath 1993: 486, 529], borrowed from some Azerbaijani form, derived from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'. Distinct from literary dišˈi 'female (n.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 113], borrowed from Azerbaijani diši 'female (n.)'.
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut pːab [abs.] / pːapː-ˈe- [obl.] / pːapː-ˈar [pl.] 'woman' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 60]. Distinct from Khlyut dišˈi 'female (n.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 220], borrowed from Azerbaijani.
Another term is attested in some dialects of the Samur group: Khuryug (subdialect of Akhty) χnub ~ χnup 'woman; wife' [Meylanova 1964: 315], Fiy χnɨb ~ χnɨpʼ 'woman; wife' [Meylanova 1964: 394]. It is unclear whether χnub ~ χnɨb represents the Proto-Lezgi term for 'woman' or simply the old suppletive plural form for 'women'.
Proto-Lezgian:*ɬːɨnː-ol2
NCED: 762. Distribution: A rather unstable word. The basic data can be summarized as follows:
'WOMAN'
CA
Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*yVčVy [NCED: 952]
woman [pl.]
woman
girl
χiʕu woman [sg.]
*ɬːɨnː-(ol) [NCED: 762]
> female (without the p-suffix)
woman [sg.] (> female)
female
female
woman (suffixless compound)
woman, female
female
*χon-pːV [NCED: 900]
woman [pl.]
woman
woman [pl.]
woman [pl.], female
woman
*ɬːɨr [NCED: 764]
female (suffixed), another wife (suffixed)
woman [sg.]
wife (bound term)
*class=ušː 'girl, daughter' [NCED: 671]
woman (compound)
woman [sg.]
*pːapː(a) 'mother, grandmother' [NCED: 286]
woman
The distributive analysis suggests that the Archi situation could be primary, that is, the following suppletive paradigm 'woman' is to be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian: *ɬːɨnː-ol [sg.] / *χon-pːV [pl.]. Naturally, in individual lects, this suppletive paradigm tends to be levelled in favor of one of the two stems. Additionally, in many Nuclear Lezgian languages, *ɬːɨnː-(ol) shifted to the meaning 'female'.
In the Caucasian Albanian-Udi branch, this paradigm was totally eliminated (note the etymologically obscure Caucasian Albanian form χiʕu 'woman [sg.]').
The Proto-Lezgian meanings of *class=ušː (>Tabasaran 'woman') and *pːapː(a) (> Gyune Lezgi 'woman') were 'girl, daughter' and 'mother, grandmother' respectively, as proved by the data of various Lezgian languages, see [NCED: 286, 671].
The original meanings of the sparsely attested *yVčVy [NCED: 952] and *ɬːɨr [NCED: 764] are not clear. These could denote 'female', 'female relative', 'wife', 'girl' and so on.
In many Lezgian lects, inherited terms for 'woman' and 'female' tend to be superseded with Azerbaijani, Persian or Arabic loanwords.
Semantics and structure: Suppletive paradigm: *ɬːɨnː-ol [sg.] / *χon-pːV [pl.]. Final -pːV is the plural exponent, whereas the final element of the stem *ɬːɨnː-ol is a relatively frequent nominal suffix. Two Proto-Lezgian variants are proposed in [NCED: 762]: *ɬːɨnː and *ɬːɨnː-ol. The former suffixless stem is postulated on the basis of the Udi derivative χun-i 'female' and the Tsakhur compound xuna-šːe 'woman'. The Tsakhur form could actually originate from *ɬːɨnː-ol as well, with the old suffix supplanted by the root šːe in the recent compound pattern. On the other hand, Udi χun-i points out that the suffixless stem *ɬːɨnː did indeed exist in Proto-Lezgian (the exact meaning of suffixless *ɬːɨnː is, however, unclear).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 332, 358; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676; Mikailov 1967: 200; Dirr 1908: 188, 208. In [Mikailov 1967], quoted as χaχǝ-tːu-class; in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] an incorrect variant χaχa-du-class is also quoted. Regular participle from the stative verb χˈaχa 'to be yellow'.
Authier 2009: 68. Also attested in the expression qʼalːi-xin 'yolk' [Authier 2009: 78] (the second element is the masdar of the verb xi- 'to become'). As proposed by Authier, derived from the substantive qʼal 'mouse'. Note the consonant gemination in the intervocalic position (-lː-), for which see [Authier 2009: 13], influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon of the Azerbaijani language.
Budukh:sozǝ {соза}5
Meylanova 1984: 127, 212; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676. A term of unknown origin.
Mishlesh Tsakhur:zɨrgɨ-n {зыргын}-1
Kibrik et al. 1999: 890, 893.
There are two related color terms in Mishlesh, studied in detail in [Davies et al. 1999]:
1) borrowed zɨrgɨ-n 'yellow (in a narrow sense)', glossed as 'yellow' in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890, 893];
2) inherited qːˤɨbɨ-n 'orange', which covers a considerable part of the color-space between yellow, red and brown. This is glossed as 'orange, of the colour of yolk' in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 876], but as 'yellow' in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 676]. qːˤɨbɨ-n is also the only term for 'yellow' found in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] (attested in the phrase 'Mortar of the yellow clay is like pitch' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 75-76]). The original substantive root qːˤɨb (with the presumed meaning 'yolk') is attested in the Mishlesh complex verb qːˤɨb qix- 'to become orange, to become of color of yolk' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 876].
Such a situation is not typical cross-linguistically. It seems reasonable to treat zɨrgɨ-n and qːˤɨbɨ-n as synonyms for Mishlesh Tsakhur.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ʁˤɨbɨ-n and zɨrgɨ-n are quoted as synonyms without specifications [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234; Dirr 1913: 152, 225. The variant ʁˤɨbɨ-n comes from [Dirr 1913]. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] zɨrɣɨ-n is also quoted as a synonym without specifications.
Mishlesh & Tsakhur-Kum zɨrgɨ-n and Mikik zɨrɣɨ-n probably represent an Iranian loanword (cf. Pahlavi zargoːn, Modern Persian zaryuːn 'golden, yellow, green'), although details are unclear.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qːarχˈi 'yellow; red (of hair)' [Uslar 1979: 819, 993; Dirr 1905: 187, 228]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːarχˈi {къархи} 'yellow' [Genko 2005: 100] (erroneously not labeled by Genko as Khyuryuk).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁatχˈu {гъатху} 'yellow' [Genko 2005: 41]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁatχˈu {гъатху} 'yellow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 109].
TAB_NOTES:
Both forms - Northern ɢarχi ~ qːarχi, Southern ʁatχˈu - are related, although morphological details are not entirely clear. The adjectives look like deverbal formations with the fossilized class infixes -r- and -d- (dχ > tχ). The assumed verbal root could be **aχ-, if the initial uvulars are the regular perfective prefix: ɢ= (Dyubek) / qː= (other Northern) / ʁ= (Southern), for which see [Magometov 1965: 222; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 34].
Quite differently in [NCED: 454], where Tabasaran 'yellow' is treated as an infixal derivation from the substantive for 'dried carcass of ram': Northern (Khyuryuk) qːaχ {къах} 'dried carcass of ram; dried pears' [Genko 2005: 100] (erroneously not labeled as Khyuryuk by Genko), Southern (Kondik) ʁaχ 'dried carcass of ram' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 19], Literary Tabasaran: ʁaχ {гъах} 'dried carcass (usually of ram)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 110]. Such a solution is more difficult morphologically and is not self-evident semantically.
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʸpːi {хъипи} 'yellow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 353; Gadzhiev 1950: 198; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 529]. Cf. the original substantive qːib [abs.] / qʸpː-ˈedi- [obl.] {къиб, хъипеди} 'yolk / yellow yarn' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 188; Haspelmath 1993: 502]. Distinct from tːurˈaqʼ or turˈaqʼ {туракь} (the Cyrillic spelling is ambivalent) 'of orange color, brick-red' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 317].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʸpːi 'yellow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].
Proto-Lezgian:*qäqV2
NCED: 414. Distribution: A rather unstable word. The stem *qäqV- is the best candidate from the distributive point of view, since it is attested as '(to be) yellow' in Archi, on the one hand, and in Aghul, on the other (having been lost in the rest of the languages). External comparison confirms this choice.
In Tsakhur, Mukhad Rutul and Lezgi, *qäqV- was superseded with the adjective *qːˤɨpː-ɨ- [LEDb: #127], derived from the substantive *qːˤɨpː 'yolk', attested in Lezgi and apparently in Mishlesh Tsakhur. Actually, *qːˤɨpː-ɨ- can be a late denominative formation in Tsakhur-Rutul and Lezgi, according to the productive morphophonological pattern (an areal lexical isogloss).
In Kryts proper, the meaning 'yellow' is expressed with the root *cʼarɨ- [NCED: 554], whose exact original meaning is unidentified: 'a k. of light color' (this stem denotes 'grey', 'variegated', 'blue' in other Nuclear Lezgian lects).
In Alyk Kryts, 'yellow' is derived from the substantive for 'mouse' (*qʼʷˤel [NCED: 935]).
There is also a Gelmets Tsakhur and Rutul term dɨraqʼ- 'yellow', which corresponds to Literary Lezgi tːuraqʼ or turaqʼ 'of orange color, brick-red' (the presumed Proto-Lezgian form is *tːoraqʼ, if we really deal with tː- in Lezgi). The dialectal Azerbaijani terms durag, durax 'jaundice' (e.g., Tovuz) may have a Nuclear Lezgian origin: cf. Ixrek Rutul dɨraq {дырахъ} 'jaundice' [Ibragimov 1978: 222] (although the plain uvular in the Ixrek form is quite unclear; this could be an error for **dɨraqʼ {дыракь} or a back borrowing from Azerbaijani).
Etymologically obscure terms for 'yellow' are attested in Udi (nešˤ-), Budukh (sozǝ), Tabasaran (the Proto-Tabasaran verbal root *aχ-).
In some Tsakhur dialects, an Iranian loanword is attested.
Gukasyan 1974: 294; Fähnrich 1999: 7; Dirr 1903: 30; Schiefner 1863: 76; Schulze 2001: 250. In [Fähnrich 1999: 7], a corrupted form aχil is also quoted. Also functions as the adjective 'far, distant, remote'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *aχˤi-l. For the rare adjectival suffix -l (or -il?)see [Schulze 2005: 229 (3.2.9.1 #12)].
Caucasian Albanian: ʕaχi [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-22].
Authier 2009: 117, 169, 199, 297, 335. Historically *y=iχ-ta with the fossilized prefixal class exponent. Distinct from the less frequent adverb/adjective aralu 'far' [Authier 2009: 59, 221].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578. In [Meylanova 1984: 72, 210], quoted as yiχ-tːa-vi {йихттави} 'far (adv.)' (repeated in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578]) and yiχ-ta {йихта} 'far (adj.)'. Geminated -tː- in Meylanova's form is unclear (cf., however, [Alekseev 1994: 294]). Historically y=ɨχ-ta with the fossilized prefixal class exponent.
Suleymanov 2003: 46; Shaumyan 1941: 148. Specified as 'far on the horizontal axis' in [Suleymanov 2003].
AGX_NOTES:
Historically w=arχa- with a fossilized prefixal class exponent. Final -ʔ is the locative ending 'in', -l is the locative ending 'on (the horizontal axis)', frequently used in local adverbs [Magometov 1970: 81, 171].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ 'far (adv.)' [Uslar 1979: 423, 750, 992; Dirr 1905: 179, 227]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ {ярхулаъ} 'far (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 200].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yarχu-lˈa-ʔ ~ yarχ-lˈa-ʔ {ярх(у)лаъ} 'far (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 200]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yarχ-la ~ yarχ-la-ʔ ~ yarχ-la-z {ярхла, ярхлаъ, ярхлаз} 'far (adv.)' [Khanmagomedov 1957: 84] (missing from [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001]).
TAB_NOTES:
Final -la is an old locative exponent; final -ʔ is the synchronic locative ending. Formally this stem can be derived from the Tabasaran adjective yarχi 'long' q.v., although the authors of [NCED] prefer to distinguish these roots. Historically y=arχu-la 'far' with a fossilized prefixal class prefix.
The same in Literary Lezgi: yarʁˈa, yarʁˈa-z, yarʁˈa-l {яргъа, яргъаз, яргъал} 'far (adj., adv.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 404; Gadzhiev 1950: 157; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 519].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yarʁˈa-l 'far (adv.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231].
Final -0, -l are locative endings; final -z is the dative ending.
Proto-Lezgian:*ʔarχːV1
NCED: 269. Distribution: Retained with the primary meaning 'far' in all languages except for Tsakhur, where it was superseded with a formation from the root *hˤarqʼɨ- 'wide' [NCED: 511].
Replacements: {'wide' > 'far'} (Tsakhur).
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the metathesis *ʔorχː- > χɨr- in Rutul.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be far'; the Ablaut grade *ʔorχːV- is attested in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Rutul.
Common Udi *biʁˤi, historically maybe *b=iʁˤi with a fossilized class-prefix.
Caucasian Albanian: buˤi 'heavy, weighty; stuttering, stumbling' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-12]; an etymological cognate of the Udi term (note the occasional loss of the intervocal -ʁ- already in CA).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Dirr 1907: 147, 186; Shaumyan 1941: 188. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two adjectives are quoted as synonyms for 'heavy' without additional specification, whereas in [Dirr 1907] only ʡürʡä-f has been found.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Shaumyan 1941: 188. The latter form is from [Shaumyan 1941]. In [Suleymanov 2003: 116], the Tpig word for 'heavy' is quoted as qːiqːˤa-f, which seems an error.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe qːaqːe-f, Kurag qːeqːe-f ~ qːiqːi-f 'heavy' [Shaumyan 1941: 188; Magometov 1970: 41, 84].
AGX_NOTES:
The distribution suggests that the Proto-Aghul term for 'heavy' should be qːeqːe- (ʁeʁe-), because it is present in both Koshan and non-Koshan dialects, but the external comparison clearly points out that Keren yarqʼʷˤe- and Gequn ʡürʡä- 'heavy' represent a retention.
It is proposed in [NCED: 927] that qːeqːe- (ʁeʁe-) 'heavy' is a new formation from the word for 'burden, load': Koshan (Burshag) ʢaʢ, Keren (Richa), Gequn (Burkikhan), Fite qːaqː 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155; Magometov 1970: 87]. In such a case the derivation 'burden' → 'heavy' is a late Tabasaran-Aghul areal isogloss (see common Tabasaran notes). The reflexes of Proto-Lezgian *qː are irregular, however (one could expect Koshan ʢ / non-Koshan ʁ), and the Koshan pair ʢaʢ 'burden' ~ ʁeʁe- 'heavy' is particularly suspicious. The development of uvulars in Aghul dialects requires additional investigation; maybe some of the aforementioned Koshan forms are Tabasaran loanwords, cf. [NCED: 133].
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two Dyubek adjectives are quoted as synonyms: aqʼˤˈi and ɢaɢˈi, the difference is unknown.
The same two terms in the Khanag subdialect: aqʼˤˈi 'heavy' [Uslar 1979: 599, 1008; Dirr 1905: 153, 245] and qːaqːˈi 'heavy' [Uslar 1979: 817, 1008; Dirr 1905: 191, 245]; the latter is incorrectly transcribed by Dirr as qaqi). According to Uslar's examples, both adjectives are indeed close synonyms.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aqʼˤˈi {аькьи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 24], qːaqːˈi {къакъи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 99].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁaʁˈi {гъагъи} 'heavy' [Genko 2005: 40]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁaʁˈi {гъагъи} 'heavy' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 104].
TAB_NOTES:
As in the case of Aghul (q.v.), the external comparison points out that aqʼˤˈi 'heavy' (retained as one of two synonyms in Northern Tabasaran) is an archaism, whereas the widespread adjective ɢaɢˈi / qːaqːˈi / ʁaʁˈi represents an innovation.
As proposed in [NCED: 927], the latter Tabasaran term was most likely derived from the substantive for 'burden': Dyubek ɢˈaɢ-a 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155], Khanag qːaqː 'load pack' [Uslar 1979: 816], Kumi qːaqː {къакъ} 'load, weight' [Genko 2005: 99], Kondik ʁaʁ 'burden, load' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 155], Khiv ʁaʁ {гъагъ} 'load, weight, burden, load pack' [Genko 2005: 40]. Such a derivation 'burden' → 'heavy' seems a late areal introduction that affected both Tabasaran and Aghul dialects (see common Aghul notes).
Gyune Lezgi:zalˈan3
Uslar 1896: 425, 636. A term of unknown origin; looks like a loanword, although the source is unidentified. If inherited, should be analyzed as zalˈa-n with the adjective suffix -n, for which see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 139 f.] (historically a genitive exponent, modifying the substantive stem).
The same in Literary Lezgi: zalˈan {залан} with polysemy: 'heavy / difficult' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 125; Gadzhiev 1950: 868; Haspelmath 1993: 513, 521]. Less frequent is the term aʁˈur {агъур} 'heavy / difficult' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 32; Haspelmath 1993: 480], borrowed from Azerbaijani aɣɨr 'heavy'.
Only the Azerbaijani loanword is found in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut aʁˈɨr 'heavy' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239].
Proto-Lezgian:*hˤiqʼʷɨ1
NCED: 513. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning 'heavy' in all the languages except for some Aghul and some Tabasaran dialects, as well as the Lezgi language.
In many Aghul and Tabasaran dialects, this was superseded with an adjective that is synchronically derived from the substantive 'burden, load' (*qːaqː [NCED: 927]); it must be noted that Aghul forms for 'heavy' can actually be Tabasaran loanwords.
In Lezgi dialects, either the etymologically obscure form zalan or the Azerbaijani loanword is used.
Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular except for the strange shift qʼ > kʼ in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). In [NCED: 513], the initial b- in the Udi (and Caucasian Albanian) form biʁˤi is explained as the result of the metathesis of labialization (*wiqʼˤ- < *hˤiqʼʷ- with the subsequent regular development *w- > Udi b-), but actually, Udi b- is more easily explainable as the fossilized class prefix - a very frequent morphological pattern in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be long'; the Budukh and Aghul medial -r- can either be the imperfective infix or the fossilized class exponent.
Gukasyan 1974: 294; Fähnrich 1999: 18; Schiefner 1863: 77; Schulze 2001: 287; Starchevskiy 1891: 490. In [Fähnrich 1999: 18], a corrupted form iša is also quoted. Also functions as the adjective 'near, close'.
UDI_NOTES:
Common Udi *išˤ-a; as plausibly proposed in [Schulze 2001: 287], the final -a is the dative ending.
Distinct from the Nidzh-Vartashen adverb tːoʁˤ-ol {тIоъгъоъл} 'near, nearby, next to; at the side of; towards' [Gukasyan 1974: 210, 294; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 578; Mobili 2010: 276; Schiefner 1863: 94; Schulze 2001: 328] from tːoʁˤ {тIоъгъ} 'edge; skirts; bank, shore' [Gukasyan 1974: 210; Mobili 2010: 276].
Caucasian Albanian: iʕa 'near, close by' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-19]. It is unclear whether CA iʕa can be an etymological cognate of Udi išˤ-a. On one hand, there are several reliable cases in which the Caucasian Albanian sign ʕ renders intervocalic -š- or -rš- in loanwords [Gippert et al. 2008: II-12] (such a strange substitution is perhaps regular in loanwords, but not necessarily so, cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: II-79 f.] for the list of foreign elements in Caucasian Albanian). On the other hand, CA iʕa ~ Udi išˤa seems the only good instance of such a correspondence between inherited Caucasian Albanian and modern Udi forms (cf. [Gippert et al. 2008: II-78]). It must be noted that the normal correspondences for the intervocalic position are trivial: CA -š- ~ Udi -š- and, apparently, CA -šˤ- ~ Udi -šˤ- [Gippert et al. 2008: II-8, 10].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 343, 351; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 577; Mikailov 1967: 191; Dirr 1908: 198, 203. Adverb and postposition. Derived from the adverb ɬːʷa 'together' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 343] with the lative case ending -k [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 60].
Distinct from the more specific adverb čʼˈaχːu-t 'nearby, neighboring' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 213, 351].
Authier 2009: 82, 87, 93, 109, etc. The final -ʕ is the locative ending 'in'. Distinct from the more specific and less frequent adverb bigila 'nearby' [Authier 2009: 81 f., 93, 94, 102, etc.].
Kibrik et al. 1999: 872, 898; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 151. For the final -wallʸe cf. the abstract noun suffix -walla [Ibragimov 1990: 83; Kibrik et al. 1999: 97].
Distinct from several words with the more specific meaning 'nearby': qːeraʁɨlʸ, yanakʸ, kʼanʸe(-qa), muglʸekʸ, oˤgʸiːlʸ(-e) [Kibrik et al. 1999: 898].
Dirr 1907: 107. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231], quoted only as bugu-li-w 'nearby'. According to examples in [Dirr 1907: 107], however, 'nearby' is rather expressed simply as bugu.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two adverbs are quoted as synonyms, semantic or pragmatic nuances are unknown.
Aghul (proper):
Not attested. Cf. the more specific adverb bagu-li-w 'nearby' [Suleymanov 2003: 36].
AGX_NOTES:
All the competing adverbs are derived from two nouns: bagʷ 'side (spatial and anatomic)' and muqʼ 'place'. Cf. Koshan (Burshag) bagʷ 'side (both spatial and anatomic)' [Suleymanov 2003: 36], Keren (Richa) bagʷ 'side (anatomic) of ram', Gequn (Burkikhan) bagʷ 'side (anatomic)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22], Proper Aghul (Tpig) bagʷ 'side (both spatial and anatomic)' [Suleymanov 2003: 36; Shaumyan 1941: 154]. On the other hand, cf. Keren (Richa, Usug), Gequn (Burkikhan), Proper Aghul (Tpig, Duldug) muqʼ 'place' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 218; Shaumyan 1941: 152; Suleymanov 2003: 135].
Final -h is the locative ending 'in front of', -w is the locative ending 'near', -l- is the locative ending 'on (the horizontal axis)', all of them frequently used in local adverbs [Magometov 1970: 81, 171].
The distribution suggests that the Proto-Aghul adverb 'near' was probably derived from bagʷ 'side', whereas adverbs based on muqʼ 'place' represent more recent formations in some dialects (maybe under the influence on the part of the neighboring Lezgi language).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two Kondik expressions for 'near (adv.)' are quoted as synonyms: bagˈa-x and ʁʷalˈa-q.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: bagˈa-h {багагь} 'near (adv.)' [Genko 2005: 25]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: bagˈa-h {багагь} 'near (adv.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 73].
TAB_NOTES:
Final -x / -h is the locative ending 'near'. Kondik ʁʷalˈa-q is a clear innovation, representing the substantive ʁʷal 'side (anatomic)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 21], modified with the locative ending -q 'behind'.
The same in Literary Lezgi: muqʼʷˈa-l, muqʼʷˈa {мукьвал} 'near (adv.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 243; Gadzhiev 1950: 55; Haspelmath 1993: 499, 523].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut muqʼˈa-l 'near (adv.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 231].
Final -0, -l are the locative endings. Distinct from the more specific literary adverb pːatːa-w 'nearby' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 260] - a locative form from the noun pːad 'side (spatial)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 257].
Proto-Lezgian:
Not reconstructible.
Distribution: In all the lects, the adverb 'near' represents synchronic locative or adverbial forms of substantives for 'place', 'side', 'together'. All these formations look like recent introductions (in many case of areal origin).
In Archi, 'near' is the lative form from the adverb 'together' (*ɬːʷV [NCED: 1063]).
In Kryts dialects, 'near' is represented by locative case forms of the Proto-Lezgian substantive *wɨnqʼʷ(a) 'place' [NCED: 1054] (the meaning 'place' is retained in Archi and some Aghul dialects). Similarly in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, 'near' represents the case form of the Lezgian noun *yisʷ [NCED: 683], which is attested as 'place' in Aghul and Tabasaran (although *wɨnqʼʷ(a) is the candidate for Proto-Lezgian term for 'place' from the distributive point of view).
In Budukh, 'near' is the locative form of the noun *pːatː [NCED: 315] (with the ending *ɬːʷ(V) [NCED: 1063]), the same locative form has the more specific meaning 'nearby' in Kryts and Lezgi. The proper noun *pːatː is only attested in Lezgi as 'side (spatial)'.
In Tsakhur, 'near' seems to be the dative form of the presumed substantive dʸolʸ ~ dʸelʸ, unattested elsewhere.
In Rutul, 'near' is the synchronic adverb from the substantive beg 'side (anatomic)', which apparently originates from Proto-Lezgian *pːakːʷ [NCED: 292], although the front vowel and delabialized velar in Rutul beg 'side (anatomic)' and Kryts beg 'side (anatomic)' are indeed irregular. But in any case, postulation of the separate root *pːeƛːV- 'near', attested only as the Rutul adverb 'near' (thus [NCED: 314]), seems unjustified. Similarly, in Tabasaran and many Aghul dialects, 'near' is the locative form 'side (spatial and anatomic)' < *pːakːʷ [NCED: 292]. But in Kondik Tabasaran, 'near' represents the locative form of the synchronic Tabasaran substantive 'side (anatomic)' < *qːʷal (~ -lː) [NCED: 472].
In the rest of Aghul dialects and in Lezgi, 'near' is the adverbial or locative form of the substantive 'place' < Proto-Lezgian *wɨnqʼʷ(a) 'place' [NCED: 1054] (the same as in the case of Kryts, see above).
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 289, 382; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 311; Mikailov 1967: 195; Dirr 1908: 172, 222. Etymologically isolated; looks like a loanword, but the source has not been identified.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123; Magometov 1970: 29; Suleymanov 1993: 34; Shaumyan 1941: 185. In [Shaumyan 1941], quoted as qʼäl. In [Suleymanov 2003], the Tpig word is quoted in two variants: qʼäl [Suleymanov 2003: 21 sub alaqas] and incorrect qʼˤal [Suleymanov 2003: 124].
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe qʼäl, Khpyuk qʼel, Kurag qʼel 'salt' [Suleymanov 1993: 34, 182; Magometov 1970: 29].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: qʼil 'salt' [Uslar 1979: 886, 1006; Dirr 1905: 201, 242]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qʼil {кьил} 'salt' [Genko 2005: 106].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: qʼel {кьел} 'salt' [Genko 2005: 106]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼil {кьил} 'salt' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 209].
The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼel {кьел} 'salt' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 200; Gadzhiev 1950: 798; Haspelmath 1993: 503, 525].
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʼäl 'salt' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123].
Proto-Lezgian:*qʼäl1
NCED: 912. Distribution: Retained with the basic meaning 'salt' in all the lects, except for Archi. It must be noted that the Archi adjective qʼala 'bitter', quoted in [NCED: 912], does not seem to exist (not found in the available sources).
In Archi, *qʼäl was superseded with the etymologically obscure form ˈorχˤi.
Replacements: {'salt' > 'bitter'} (see [NCED: 912] for examples).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 585. This Common Kryts-Budukh term underwent phonetical influence on the part of the Azerbaijani word gödäk 'short', but cannot be regarded as a direct Azerbaijani loanword, because the loss of final -k is inexplicable in this case.
Meylanova 1984: 36, 218. Apparently this inherited term underwent influence on the part of the Azerbaijani word gödäk 'short' (see note on Kryts proper). In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237], 'short' is glossed as godǝk, which should be formally regarded as a pure Azerbaijani loanword.
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 585], 'short' is erroneously glossed as älčah {аьлчагь}, which is in fact alčaʁ {алчагъ} 'low, small in height' [Meylanova 1984: 19], borrowed from Azerbaijani alčag 'low, small in height'.
The same in the Arsug subdialect: ǯeʁe-d 'short' [Suleymanov 1993: 80]. It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 81], the Arsug or Khudig form is quoted as ǯaʁˤa-d, which seems erroneous.
Suleymanov 1993: 80; Shaumyan 1941: 171. The form with -ä- is from [Shaumyan 1941]. It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 81], the Tpig form is quoted as ǯiqːˤa-f, which seems to be an error.
The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Khpyuk ǯiqːe-f, Kurag ǯeqːe-f, Duldug ǯaqːi-f 'short' [Suleymanov 1993: 80; Magometov 1970: 42; Shaumyan 1941: 171].
AGX_NOTES:
The correspondence Koshan ʁ- / non-Koshan qː (< Lezgian *qː) suggests that the Aghul forms could actually be borrowed from Tabasaran, cf. notes on Aghul 'heavy'.
Final -d, -t, -f, -r are the adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92], [Shaumyan 1941: 45].
The same in the Khanag subdialect: ǯiqːˈi 'short' [Uslar 1979: 693, 996]. In [Dirr 1905: 170, 231], transcribed as ǯiʁi (and even ǯig-) - this is actually either a form from some Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2nd half of the 19th century between Uslar's and Dirr' records.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ǯiqːˈi {жжикъи} 'short' [Genko 2005: 67].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: ǯiqːˈi {жжи(к)къи} 'short' [Genko 2005: 67]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ǯiqːˈi {жикъи} 'short' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 162].
The same in Literary Lezgi: kːürˈü {куьруь} 'short' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 170; Gadzhiev 1950: 310; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 526].
Etymologically the same term in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čːʷerˈi 'short' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].
Proto-Lezgian:*kːʷVˤtʼV1
NCED: 690. Distribution: We fill the slot with the root *kːʷVˤtʼV- [NCED: 690], which means 'short' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), but 'narrow' in Lezgi (see notes on Lezgi 'thin') and 'short-eared ram' in Aghul. External comparison supports *kːʷVˤtʼV- as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'short'.
In West and East Lezgian a phonetically irregular root *čːiCV- is used for 'short' (reconstructed as *čːi[kʼ]V- in [NCED: 1108]). It is attested as *čːitʼV- in Tsakhur, *čːikV- in Rutul, *čːiqːV- in Tabasaran and Aghul (note that the Aghul forms can be Tabasaran loanwords).
In Lezgi, 'short' is expressed with the etymologically isolated form, which points to the Proto-Lezgian shape *čːʷerV-.
In both outliers, inherited forms were superseded with loanwords: Udi < Azerbaijani, Archi < Lak.
Replacements: {'short' > 'narrow'} (Lezgi)
Reconstruction shape: The voiced reflex d of Lezgian *tʼ observed in South Lezgian (Kryts gʷädä, Budukh godǝ) is due to influence on the part of Azerbaijani gödäk 'short'.
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be short'.
Common Udi *dizikː. Morphologically and etymologically obscure; looks like a loanword, although the source has not been identified (proposals in [Schulze 2001: 270] do not seem apt).
Caucasian Albanian: boˤq [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-11]; probably an important archaism, as correctly noted by Gippert & Schulze.
Archi:yˈaˤtʼi-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 256, 360; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170; Mikailov 1967: 184; Dirr 1908: 156, 209. Etymologically isolated, apparently borrowed from Lak yatʼi 'worm, lavra', although the meaning shift looks strange (this is not the main Lak term for 'worm').
Kryts (proper):ilan-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170. Borrowed from Azerbaijani ilan 'snake'.
The same in the Khanag subdialect: bitʼ 'snake' [Uslar 1979: 615, 994; Dirr 1905: 158, 229]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: bitʼ {битI} 'snake' [Genko 2005: 29].
The same in the Khiv subdialect: bitʼ ~ betʼ {битI, бетI} 'snake' [Genko 2005: 29]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: bitʼ {битI} 'snake' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 87].
The same in Literary Lezgi: ʁülˈäʁ {гъуьлягъ} with polysemy: 'snake / silkworm' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 95; Gadzhiev 1950: 247; Haspelmath 1993: 490, 526]. A second, less frequent literary word for 'snake' is ilˈan [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 135; Gadzhiev 1950: 247], borrowed from Azerbaijani ilan 'snake'.
The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut ülˈäʁ 'snake' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88].
Proto-Lezgian:*ƛːar2
NCED: 787. Distribution: There are three equally probable (from the distributional point of view) candidates for the Proto-Lezgian term for 'snake': Caucasian Albanian, Udi and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian. Out of these, Udi dizikː is etymologically unclear and should be excluded. Therefore, the choice is between two terms: Caucasian Albanian and Proto-Nuclear Lezgian.
The isolated Caucasian Albanian boˤq 'snake' may regularly originate from a Proto-Lezgian form like *woˤrƛʷ(V), which, in turn, may regularly continue North Caucasian *wHoːrƛʷVɫV (~ *b-) [NCED: 1048] (or rather *wHoːrƛʷV- with the suffix -ɫ- in proto-languages of individual groups). This Proto-North Caucasian stem means 'snake' in the Avaro-Ando-Tsezian branch and 'snail' in Lak; note that, pace [NCED: 1048], specific Nakh forms for 'snake' originate from the word for 'mud', not from the aforementioned North Caucasian stem.
The second candidate is *ƛːar [NCED: 787], which denotes 'snake' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Rutul, having been lost in the rest of the languages. In terms of distribution, it can be posited at least as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian expression for 'snake'. Its North Caucasian comparanda are to be reconstructed as prototerms for 'snake' in Nakh, Khinalugh and possibly Proto-West Caucasian.
Because North Caucasian *ᴌːăɦrV (> Lezgian *ƛːar) has a wider distribution, whereas *wHoːrƛʷV- in the meaning 'snake' seems to be a local Avaro-Ando-Tsezian isogloss, we prefer to postulate *ƛːar as the basic Proto-Lezgian term for 'snake'. The original meaning of Lezgian *woˤrƛʷ(V) (> Caucasian Albanian boˤq 'snake', if the proposed etymology is correct) is unclear, perhaps 'a k. of snake' vel sim.
In Tsakhur, *ƛːar was superseded with *χʷärčVy [NCED: 1080], whose original meaning should be 'a k. of worm' (cf. the meaning 'worm' for Archi χʷˈarši q.v.).
In Tabasaran, the form bitʼ 'snake' is attested; it is isolated within Lezgian (Lezgi bütʼrˈük(ʷ) 'small worm' seems to be a Tabasaran loanword, see notes on 'worm'). Its Lezgian protoform is reconstructed as *pːe(m)tʼ (~ b-) in [NCED: 290] with possible external North Caucasian comparanda with the meanings 'snake' and 'worm'.
In Lezgi, 'snake' is expressed with the root *mulaqʷˤ 'worm' q.v. [NCED: 817].
In some lects, inherited forms tend to be superseded with borrowings from Azerbaijani ilan 'snake' (Kryts Proper, Aghul). In Archi, a Lak loanword is used.
Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *ƛːara-.
NUMBER:107
WORD:thin
Nidzh Udi:näzik ~ näzikː {наьзик ~ наьзикI}-1
Gukasyan 1974: 179; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 587; Mobili 2010: 220. The variant näzikː comes from [Gukasyan 1974] and [Mobili 2010]. Polysemy: 'thin 2D / thin 1D'.
Vartashen Udi:näzikː ~ näzig {наьзикI}-1
Gukasyan 1974: 179; Fähnrich 1999: 24; Schiefner 1863: 97. In [Gukasyan 1974] quoted as näzikː; in [Fähnrich 1999] - as näzüg; in [Schiefner 1863] - as näzig.
UDI_NOTES:
Borrowed from Azerbaijani nazik 'thin 2D/1D' (ultimately from Persian naːzuk 'thin').
Caucasian Albanian: not attested. Cf. qʼačʼ 'narrow(?)' in the compound huˤkʼe-qʼačʼ 'sadness, sorrow', if < *'narrow-hearted' [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-27].
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 263, 385; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 587; Mikailov 1967: 185; Dirr 1908: 160, 224. Polysemy: 'thin 2D / thin 1D'. Regular participle from the stative verb kʼalˈa 'to be thin'.
Distinct from qʼʷˤˈaqʼar-tːu 'narrow, tight (of path, dress)', participle from the stative verb qʼʷˤˈaqʼar 'to be narrow' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 309] (in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 238], quoted with a typo: qʼʷˤˈaqʼʷar-).
Distinct from dar 'narrow' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 872], borrowed from Azerbaijani dar 'narrow'. In [NCED: 522] (Proto-Lezgian *hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä-), also the Kryts suffixed adjective kɨ-tä- 'narrow' is quoted (not found in other sources).
Authier 2009: 13, 69, 192. Attested in the meaning 'thin 2D'. Note the consonant gemination in the intervocalic position (for which see [Authier 2009: 13]), influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
Distinct from dar 'narrow' [Authier 2009: 104], borrowed from Azerbaijani dar 'narrow'.
Meylanova 1984: 187; Alekseev 1994: 294. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239], this word is quoted as qǝtːi - an error? According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], polysemy 'thin 2D / thin 1D'. Final -tːi is the old adjective suffix.
In [Meylanova 1984: 113, 245], the word nazik {назик} is also quoted in the meaning 'thin'; basic semantics is 'thin 2D' in all found examples. Borrowed from Azerbaijani nazik 'thin 2D/1D' (ultimately from Persian naːzuk 'thin').
Distinct from more specific taχta-lu {тахталу} 'flat, plane, thin 2D' [Meylanova 1984: 133, 245].
Distinct from dar 'narrow' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 872], borrowed from Azerbaijani dar 'narrow'.
Kibrik et al. 1999: 881, 900; Ibragimov 1990: 76; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 203; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 587. The second variant kʼʸiˤwa-n comes from [Ibragimov 1990: 76, 82, 183, 203] and [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 203], where this word is consistently transcribed with -i-. Polysemy: 'thin 2D / skinny / shallow'. In the meaning 'thin' the word can be applied, e.g., to 'paper', 'flat cake', and, according to [Kibrik et al. 1999], to 'thread' (sic?).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Ibragimov 1990: 183. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 587], the modern depharyngealized variant is quoted: qʼɨwa-nʸ. Meaning 'thin 2D'.
A second term gaˤd-dɨ is observed in [Makhmudova 2001: 95, 183] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 587]. Makhmudova claims that the two terms are opposed as follows: gaˤd-dɨ is applied to animated objects (i.e. 'lean, thin'?), and qʼɨl-dɨ to inanimate ones.
Cf. also qʼɨcʼ-dɨ, quoted in [Dirr 1912: 166] as 'thin' without specification (corresponds to qʼɨcʼ-dɨ 'narrow' in other dialects). Maybe this is the Mukhad word for 'thin (1D)'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Suleymanov 2003: 126; Shaumyan 1941: 184. In [Shaumyan 1941], quoted with plain -l-: kʼele-. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], with polysemy: 'thin 2D / thin 1D', although according to the explicit glosses in [Suleymanov 2003] and [Shaumyan 1941], Burshag kʼelːe- denotes just 'thin 2D'.
In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], two Burshag words are quoted as synonyms for 'thin 2D/1D'; the second one is kːu-re-r.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239. Meaning 'thin 2D'; opposed to ikːe-f 'thin 1D'.
The same in the Usug subdialect: kʼile-f 'thin 2D', iškːe-f 'thin 1D' [Shaumyan 1941: 143, 184]. The Usug form iškːe- was probably influenced on the part of the Lezgi word for 'thin 1D'.
Suleymanov 2003: 126; Shaumyan 1941: 184. Meaning 'thin 2D'. In [Shaumyan 1941], quoted with plain -l-: kʼile-.
AGX_NOTES:
The opposition kʼele- 'thin 2D' / ikːe- (kːu-re-) 'thin 1D' can be safely reconstructed for Proto-Aghul.
Medial -re- in kːu-re- in an adjective suffix [Suleymanov 1993: 113]. Final -d, -t, -f, -r are adjectival suffixes (fossilized class exponents) [Magometov 1970: 92; Shaumyan 1941: 45].
Reduction of the initial i- in the Koshan & Fite prefixed stem kːu-re- can theoretically be explained as a recent dialectal feature (see [Suleymanov 1993: 42 f.] for the sporadic vowel reduction in Aghul dialects), but the dialectal distribution of the syncopated and non-syncopated variants is atypical. Most likely kːu-re- represents a more ancient process of vowel reduction, observed for this root also in some other Lezgian languages.
Note the gemination of -l- in kʼelːe-, influenced by the same sporadic phenomenon in the Azerbaijani language.
The non-Koshan adjective isal- 'narrow' is quoted as isːal-f in [Khaydakov 1973: 111] - apparently a misprint.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239. Meaning 'thin 2D'; opposed to kːu-rˈu 'thin 1D'.
The same in the Khiv subdialect: čʼilːˈi {чIилли} 'thin 2D' [Genko 2005: 186], opposed to kːu-rˈu {ккуру} with polysemy: 'thin 1D / narrow' [Genko 2005: 97].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: čʼilːˈi {чIилли} 'thin 2D' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 343], opposed to kːu-rˈu {ккуру} with polysemy: 'thin 1D / narrow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 200].
TAB_NOTES:
The opposition čʼilːi 'thin 2D' / kːu-rːi 'thin 1D' can safely be reconstructed for Proto-Tabasaran; the Dyubek polysemy čʼilːi 'thin 2D/1D' is secondary. Final -r- (-rː-) in kːu-ru is an adjectival suffix.
In [Genko 2005: 77], also the Northern (Kumi, Khyuryuk) and Southern (Khiv) term isˈal 'narrow; cramped, small' in quoted (in [Khaydakov 1973: 111], erroneously transcribed as isel). In Literary Tabasaran, this adjective is only used in the expression isal dere 'narrow ravine, gorge' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 179].
Uslar 1896: 527, 635. Meaning 'thin 2D'. Opposed to šükʼˈü with polysemy: 'thin 1D / lean, thin' [Uslar 1896: 603, 635]. Distinct from two Gyune words for 'narrow': gʷetʼˈi [Uslar 1896: 378, 636] and sal [Uslar 1896: 545, 636].
The same opposition in Literary Lezgi: qʼelˈečʼ {кьелечI} with interesting polysemy: 'thin 2D / wiry, lean (of human, animal)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 201; Gadzhiev 1950: 851; Haspelmath 1993: 503, 528], šükʼˈü {шуькIуь} 'thin 1D' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 387; Gadzhiev 1950: 851; Haspelmath 1993: 507, 528]. Distinct from two literary words for 'narrow': inherited gütʼˈü {гуьтIуь} 'narrow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 91; Haspelmath 1993: 489, 523], and borrowed dar {дар} 'narrow; restricted, tight' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 107; Haspelmath 1993: 486, 523] (< Azerbaijani dar 'narrow').
The same opposition in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qʼälˈačʼ 'thin 2D', škːi 'thin 1D / narrow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239].
Proto-Lezgian:*ƛʼɨlä1
NCED: 639. Distribution: The basic data can be summarized as follows:
'THIN'
Udi
Archi
Kryts
Budukh
Tsakhur
Rutul
Aghul
Tabasaran
Lezgi
*ƛʼɨlä- [NCED: 639]
1D/2D
1D/2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
*hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä- [NCED: 521]
narrow(?)
1D/2D
1D
1D
1D / narrow
1D / narrow
1D / narrow
*ʔisːal(ː)- [NCED: 752]
narrow
narrow
sal narrow
*qʼːʷˤarV- [NCED: 933]
narrow
lean, emaciated
?
qːačː narrow
?
qʼɨcʼ- narrow
Azerbaijani loanword
1D/2D
Azerbaijani loanword
narrow
narrow
narrow
For Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, the opposition *ƛʼɨlä- 'thin 2D' [NCED: 639] / *hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä- 'thin 1D' [NCED: 521] can be reconstructed with safety. It is possible to treat such an opposition as a secondary feature of Nuclear Lezgian (and only reconstruct *ƛʼɨlä- 'thin 2D/1D' for Proto-Lezgian), but, since both roots possess external North Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'thin', we prefer to reconstruct *ƛʼɨlä- 'thin 2D' / *hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä- 'thin 1D' for Proto-Lezgian.
In both outliers (Udi, Archi), the semantic opposition 'thin 2D' / 'thin 1D' has been eliminated. In the Udi case, this happened under the influence of Azerbaijani polysemy; for Archi, a similar Lak influence is probable.
Reconstruction shape: For *ƛʼɨlä-, correspondences seem regular except for pharyngealization in Tsakhur. In the case of *hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä-, the situation is more complicated, because this root is frequently modified with adjectival suffixes (-*-tːV, *-rV) that cause reduction of the initial vowel and subsequent simplification of the cluster *mƛ (the Proto-Lezgian nasal phoneme is reconstructed on the basis of external evidence).
Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal roots 'to be thin 2D' (*ƛʼɨlä-) and 'to be thin 1D' (*hˤɨ(m)ƛʼːä-).
Kibrik et al. 1999: 877, 900. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in the example in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 65 sub baʁ 'rope, string']. Meaning 'thin 1D'. Can be applied to 'log/beam', 'rope/string'.
Distinct from darɨ-n 'narrow' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 872], borrowed from Azerbaijani dar 'narrow'.
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: hɨˤkːʸe-n 'thin 1D', [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239]. Distinct from darɨ-n 'narrow' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 238], borrowed from Azerbaijani dar 'narrow'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 239; Suleymanov 2003: 87, 88; Shaumyan 1941: 143. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], with polysemy: 'thin 2D / thin 1D / narrow', although, according to the explicit glosses in [Suleymanov 2003] and [Shaumyan 1941], Burshag kːu-re- denotes just 'thin 1D / narrow'. In [Magometov 1970: 170], erroneously quoted as gü-re-r.
Caucasian Albanian: muš [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-30].
Archi:hawˈa-1
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 238, 352; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 59; Dirr 1908: 148, 206. Polysemy: 'wind / air / weather'. Borrowed from Lak hawa 'air; weather' or from Avar hawˈa 'air' (ultimately < Arabic hawaːʔ 'air, breeze'). In [Chumakina 2009] incorrectly treated as a direct borrowing from Arabic; for the Avar and Lak intermediation in the adaptation of Arabic words in Archi see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 44].
Kryts (proper):kulak-1
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 209; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 59. Borrowed from Azerbaijani küläk 'wind'. In [NCED: 758], also Kryts xar with polysemy 'wind / rheumatism' is quoted (< *ɬːar), not found in other sources.
Alyk Kryts:kulak-1
Authier 2009: 94, 229, 266, etc. Borrowed from Azerbaijani küläk 'wind'.
Ibragimov 1990: 27, 39, 49, 66; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 59. Not attested in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] as a separate entry, but attested in examples, e.g., [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 31 sub aycʼaraʔas, 54 sub aʔas, etc.].
A second term for 'wind' is kulʸek [Ibragimov 1990: 55, 66; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 196], borrowed from Azerbaijani küläk 'wind'.
A third term is yelʸkan, quoted in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 879, 892] as the only generic term for 'wind', but glossed as 'light wind, breeze' in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 161]. Borrowed from dialectal Azerbaijani *yel-kän vel sim. from yel '(light) wind' (cf. literary Azerbaijani yel-kän 'sail; fan').
Distinct from inherited xɨbɨl {хьыбыл} 'light wind, breeze' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 283] (this is incorrectly listed in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 59] as the basic Ixrek term for 'wind').
The same in the Khanag subdialect: mikʼ with polysemy: 'wind / rheumatism' [Uslar 1979: 855, 990; Dirr 1905: 195, 226]. The second Khanag word for 'wind' is kulak [Dirr 1905: 185, 226], borrowed from Azerbaijani küläk 'wind'.
The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: inherited mikʼ {микI} 'wind' [Genko 2005: 120] and borrowed kulˈak {кулак} 'wind, whirl' [Genko 2005: 88].
The same in Literary Tabasaran: mikʼ with polysemy: 'wind / rheumatism' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 229]. The second literary word is kulˈak {кулак} 'wind, whirl' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 203], borrowed from Azerbaijani küläk 'wind'.
Differently in the Khiv subdialect, where two words for 'wind' are known: inherited xar {хьар} 'wind' [Genko 2005: 175] and borrowed kulˈak {кулак} 'wind, whirl' [Genko 2005: 88]. The Common Tabasaran term is retained as Khiv mekʼ {мекI} 'rheumatism' [Genko 2005: 119].
TAB_NOTES:
mikʼ can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Tabasaran term for 'wind', probably with polysemy: 'wind / rheumatism'. It retains its basic meaning in all the dialects, except for Khiv, where mikʼ has been narrowed to 'rheumatism', having been superseded with xar (not attested in other subdialects). The external etymology [NCED: 758] suggests that originally xar denoted some specific kind of wind, cf. Lezgi gar '(warm) wind' q.v.
Uslar 1896: 394, 608. A generic term, according to Uslar's examples, although probably not applied specifically to 'cold/cool wind'. Distinct from specific qːa-y 'cold wind, cool wind' [Uslar 1896: 485] (inaccurately glossed as 'cool, coolness' by Uslar) - a participle from the verb räqːi- [imperf.] / qːa- [perf.] 'to get cold' [Uslar 1896: 495] (cf. the parallel participle qːa-yˈi 'cold' q.v.).
The same in Literary Lezgi: gar {гар} 'wind (in general, but probably not applied to the specifically cold wind)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 82; Haspelmath 1993: 488, 529]. Distinct from literary qːa-y {къай} 'cold wind' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 175; Haspelmath 1993: 501, 529] - a participle from the verb 'to get cold'.
In the Akhty dialect: no generic term for 'wind' is documented for the Khlyut subdialect, cf. specific gar 'west wind', qːa-y 'east wind' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 208]. The same in the Khuryug subdialect: gar 'south wind', qːa-y 'cold wind' [Meylanova 1964: 315].
Based on available data, it is theoretically possible to reconstruct the Proto-Lezgi opposition ɣar 'warm wind' / qːa-y 'cold wind' without a single generic term.
Proto-Lezgian:*muč1
NCED: 826. Distribution: This word is retained as the basic term for 'wind' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi, on the one hand, and in Tsakhur, on the other, having shifted to the meaning 'hope' in Aghul and Tabasaran.
In Rutul, 'wind' is expressed by the stem *ƛopːol [NCED: 786], which means 'rheumatism' in Lezgi. The original meaning of *ƛopːol seems to have been 'a k. of wind', e.g., 'breeze'.
The third candidate is *ɬːar [NCED: 758], which means 'wind' in Lezgi (perhaps to be reconstructed as 'warm (south) wind' for Proto-Lezgi) and in Khiv Tabasaran (but not in Proto-Tabasaran), but 'rheumatism' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh). The original meaning of *ɬːar seems to have been 'a k. of wind', e.g., 'warm wind'.
In Tabasaran, 'wind' is denoted by *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' [NCED: 808], see notes on 'cold' (apparently with the development 'cold' > 'cold wind' > 'wind in general').
Aghul tireb 'wind' is etymologically unclear.
In many lects, inherited forms have been completely superseded with Azerbaijani loanwords (Kryts, Budukh, Ixrek Rutul, some Aghul dialects). In Archi, there is a loanword from Lak or Avar.
Gukasyan 1974: 173; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170; Mobili 2010: 209. Meaning is specified as 'earthworm' in [Gukasyan 1974] and as generic 'worm, earthworm' in [Mobili 2010].
Gukasyan 1974: 173; Fähnrich 1999: 23; Schiefner 1863: 104; Schulze 2001: 299; Starchevskiy 1891: 508. Meaning specified as 'earthworm' in [Gukasyan 1974] and as generic 'worm, earthworm' in [Mobili 2010]. Glossed with polysemy: 'worm / caterpillar / larva' in [Fähnrich 1999: 23]. It must be noted that in [Fähnrich 1999: 28] the meaning 'earthworm' is apparently erroneously ascribed to the word qːuil; in turn, Fähnrich's transcription qːuil must be read as qːuiʁ (= Vartashen qːuyeʁ {къуйегъ} 'helminth' [Gukasyan 1974: 161], qːuiʁ 'helminth' [Starchevskiy 1891: 497]), where the Georgian letter ghan was confused with las during Romanization and typesetting of the volume.
Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 280, 388; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170; Mikailov 1967: 193; Dirr 1908: 167, 226. Meaning specified as 'earthworm'. There also exists another term χʷˈarši [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 334, 388; Mikailov 1967: 200], which is always glossed simply as 'worm' without further specification. It remains unclear whether χʷˈarši is a more generic term than milˈiχˤu, or if χʷˈarši denotes some kinds of parasites and vermin as opposed to earthworms. In such an unclear situation we prefer to follow the GLD semantic standard and fill the slot with the word for 'earthworm'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170. In [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990] two terms are quoted for 'worm', both without specification: kʷak and čič. We are forced to treat these as synonyms.
Distinct from the compound šer-bäħ, quoted in [NCED: 982] with the gloss 'worm, helminth' (the second element -bäħ is not clear).
Ibragimov 1990: 166, 199; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 55. Not attested in [Kibrik et al. 1999]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170], quoted as abrawučʼe. In [Ibragimov 1990] and [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010] specified as 'earthworm', opposed to the more generic term boqʼˤ 'insect, worm' [Ibragimov 1990: 199].
Distinct from mɨqˤ {мыIхъ} 'worm' (the exact meaning is unknown) [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 270], naʁur ~ laʁur {нагъур, лагъур} 'helminth' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 271] and čʼuˤʔ 'small worms in meat' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 404].
Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: abrawuče [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88]. Distinct from mɨqˤ 'caterpillar' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88], although in [Schulze 1997: 16] mɨqˤ is glossed as 'worm'.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Ibragimov 1990: 199. According to [Ibragimov 1990: 199], bɨrqʼˤɨnʸäš is a generic term, meaning 'insect, worm', but the expression for 'earthworm' is based on this word: tʼɨžʷar haʔan bɨrqʼˤɨnʸäš, literally 'an insect/worm that makes rings'. In actual fact, bɨrqʼˤɨnʸä-š is derived from the adjective bɨrqʼˤɨ-na 'blind' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 240] (this is natural for the meaning 'worm', but somewhat strange for the meaning 'insect'; thus, the semantic development must have been 'blind' → 'worm' → 'insect').
In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170], 'worm' is glossed as muq {мухъ} (the modern depharyngealized variant for expected muqˤ).
TKR_NOTES:
It is very probable that the Proto-Tsakhur generic term for 'worm (incl. earthworm)' was mɨqˤ (assimilated muqˤ), which has by now shifted to 'caterpillar', having been superseded by the descriptive equivalent 'blind' in Gelmets and the obscure word abrawučʼ(e) ~ abrawuč in the other dialects.
Dirr 1912: 161; Ibragimov 1978: 19, 117; Makhmudova 2001: 20, 21; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170. The variant mulɨχˤ is from [Dirr 1912]; the variant müluχˤ is from [Ibragimov 1978]; the variant mulüχˤ is from [Makhmudova 2001].
According to [Makhmudova 2001: 20], mulüχˤ 'worm' is opposed to the specific term barcʼil 'earthworm', but this seems to be inaccurate, since Ibragimov [Ibragimov 1978: 135] explicitly states that the word barcil (sic!) 'earthworm' is characteristic of the Khnyukh dialect (subdialect of Mukhad) without an etymological counterpart in Mukhad proper. In [Khaydakov 1973: 11] (followed by [NCED: 288]), barcʼil 'earthworm' is labeled simply as "Rutul".
Distinct from šär-äkʼ 'helminth' [Dirr 1912: 182, 188] and cʼir-uχ 'caterpillar' [Ibragimov 1978: 225].
Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 194, 413; Ibragimov 1978: 225; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 170. Glossed as 'worm (in general); earthworm'. The palatalized variant comes from [Ibragimov 1978]. According to Ibragimov, with polysemy: 'worm / caterpillar'.
Distinct from various terms that are more marginal or specific: šar-akʼ 'helminth' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 301], seb 'worm; cabbage white butterfly' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 227] (apparently more correctly glossed as 'caterpillar' in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 334]), cʼuʁ 'worm' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 288] (without specifications), čʼiʔ {чIиъ} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 413] (without specification; missing from the main section of the dictionary).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88; Suleymanov 2003: 133; Shaumyan 1941: 151. In [Suleymanov 2003], incorrectly quoted as mileqʷˤ {милехъʿв}. A generic term (incl. earthworms and worms in meat), although distinct from šar 'helminth' [Suleymanov 2003: 204; Shaumyan 1941: 164].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88. Specified by Kibrik & Kodzasov as 'earthworm', as opposed to mulˈaqˤ, which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88] simply as 'worm' (semantic details are unknown).
The semantic opposition in the Khanag subdialect is better documented: šːar with polysemy: 'earthworm / helminth' [Uslar 1979: 985, 1009] (missing from [Dirr 1905]). Distinct from Khanag mulˈaqˤ 'worm (in fruit, meat, wound)' [Uslar 1979: 865, 1009; Dirr 1905: 196, 246].
Similarly in the Khyuryuk subdialect: šːar {шшар} with polysemy: 'earthworm / helminth' [Genko 2005: 192, 221], opposed to mulˈaqˤ {мюляхъ} 'worm' [Genko 2005: 124] (not specified semantically).
The same in the Kumi subdialect: šːar {шшар}, glossed as 'worm, helminth' [Genko 2005: 192], opposed to mulˈaqˤ ~ mulˈaqʷˤ {мюляхъ(ю)} 'worm' [Genko 2005: 124] (not specified semantically).
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88. Paradigm: šar [abs.] / šar-ˈu [erg.]. Specified by Kibrik & Kodzasov as 'earthworm', as opposed to malˈaqˤ, which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88] simply as 'worm' (semantic details are unknown)
The same in the Khiv subdialect: šar {шар} with polysemy: 'earthworm / helminth' [Genko 2005: 189], opposed to malˈaqʷˤ {мяляхъв} 'worm' [Genko 2005: 124] (not specified semantically).
In the Truf subdialects: šer {шер} 'worm' [Genko 2005: 189] (not specified semantically).
Differently in Literary Tabasaran, where šar {шар} is the basic term for 'worm (incl. earthworm and helminth)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 347]. Distinct from literary bitʼruk {битIрук} 'worm' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 87] with two examples: "wood worm" and "to become worm-eaten"; perhaps to be analyzed as bitʼ-ru-k - the oblique stem bitʼ-ru- from bitʼ 'snake' q.v. plus the expressive suffix -k (differently in [NCED: 290], where bitʼruk is treated as a compound bitʼ-ruk 'snake' + 'grass-snake'). It seems that literary bitʼruk is a semantic equivalent of malˈaqʷˤ (mulˈaqˤ) from other dialects.
TAB_NOTES:
The semantic opposition šːar (šar) 'earthworm, helminth (i.e. large worm)' / malˈaqʷˤ (mulˈaqˤ) 'worm in (rotten) organic (i.e. small worm)' can safely be reconstructed for Proto-Tabasaran. In Literary Tabasaran the latter term got lost, having been superseded with the new formation bitʼ-ru-k ← 'snake'.
Cf. also the reflex of Lezgian *kamk: Khyuryuk, Khiv kamk {камк} 'wormhole, ulcer' [Genko 2005: 82].
Uslar 1896: 600, 638. Polysemy: 'earthworm / helminth'. Distinct from Gyune kʷakʷ 'worm (in wood, fruit, wound)' [Uslar 1896: 461, 638] and from bütʼrˈük [abs.] / bütʼrˈükʷ-ar [pl.] 'worm' (the only relevant example is "worm in wound") [Uslar 1896: 363, 638].
A very similar situation in Literary Lezgi: šar {шар} 'earthworm / helminth' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 382; Gadzhiev 1950: 142, 927; Haspelmath 1993: 529]. Distinct from kʷak [abs.] / kuk-rˈa- [obl.] / kukʷ-ˈar [pl.] {квак} 'worm (in fruit, meat, flour, grain, wood' [Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 347; Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 153; Gadzhiev 1950: 927; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 529] and from the rare word bütʼrˈük [sg.] / bütʼrˈük-ar [pl.] {буьтIруьк} [Gadzhiev 1950: 927], which is explained as a synonym of kʷak in [Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 140], but specifically glossed as 'larva of green blowfly' in [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 70] (In [Khaydakov 1973: 11], the assimilated variant pʼütʼrük 'worm' is also quoted). Cf. also literary kʼazun ʁüläʁ {кIазун гъуьлягъ} 'silkworm', literary 'silk's snake (q.v.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 210; Gadzhiev 1950: 927].
In the Akhty dialect: two terms for 'worm' are documented for the Khlyut subdialect, both without semantic specifications: šar and kʷak [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 88].
In the Usukhchay subdialect of the Doquzpara dialect (Samur group) the generic term for 'worm' is pʼarkʼʷ [Meylanova 1964: 223].
The available data are too scant for detailed Proto-Lezgi reconstruction, but the generic opposition šar 'earthworm, helminth (i.e. large worm)' / X 'worm in (rotten) organic (i.e. small worm)' is the same as in the neighboring Tabasaran language. It must be noted that the rare Gyune and literary word bütʼrˈük(ʷ) 'small worm' seems actually a Tabasaran loan, cf. Literary Tabasaran bitʼ-ru-k 'small worm' q.v.
Proto-Lezgian:*mulaqʷˤ1
NCED: 817. Distribution: This stem can be safely reconstructed as 'worm in general' or at least 'earthworm' for Proto-Lezgian; the meanings 'worm in general' or 'earthworm' are retained in all the languages except for some Nuclear Lezgian lects: Budukh (shifted to 'worm in meat'), Tabasaran (shifted to 'worm in (rotten) organic'), Lezgi (shifted to 'snake' q.v.), Khnyukh Rutul.
The term *šːar [NCED: 982] can be reconstructed as 'helminth' at least for the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian level: 'helminth' in Kryts, Rutul, East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), additionally extended to mean 'worm in general' in Tabasaran, Lezgi.
The term *kamk [NCED: 206] could mean 'worm in (rotten) organic' at least at the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian level: Kryts 'worm (in general?)', Lezgi 'worm (in wood, fruit, wound)', Tabasaran 'wormhole, ulcer', Aghul 'itch, mange', Tsakhur 'grub, larva'.
The original meaning of *čirč- [NCED: 348] is not clear. This is the basic term for 'worm' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), whereas the suffixed stem *čirč-Vl means 'lizard' in Tabasaran and Lezgi.
For Proto-Tsakhur, *mulaqʷˤ can be posited as 'worm (incl. earthworm)', although in modern Tsakhur dialects, this stem shifted to the meaning 'caterpillar', having been superseded with the descriptive term 'blind' or the etymologically obscure abrawučʼ(e) ~ abrawuč.
In Khnyukh Rutul, *mulaqʷˤ was superseded with the etymological isolate barcʼ-il, which can originate from the protoform *pːalcʼ- (thus [NCED: 288] with a dubious Tsezian comparandum). Actually, Khnyukh Rutul barcʼ-il can hardly be separated from Usukhchay Lezgi pʼarkʼʷ 'worm (in general?)' which implies a protoform like pʼalcʼʷ (~ pː- ~ -r-), although the correspondence Rutul b- / Lezgi pʼ is not regular (assimilation or dissimilation between two root consonants). The original meaning of this root is unclear.
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 209. An additional synonym is yis-qʼˈuw (not specified semantically by Kibrik & Kodzasov).
The same in the Khanag subdialect: yisː 'year' [Uslar 1979: 753, 992; Dirr 1905: 180, 226]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yisː {йисс-} 'year' [Genko 2005: 80].
Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 209. An additional synonym is yis-qʼˈub (not specified semantically by Kibrik & Kodzasov).
The same in the Khiv subdialect: yis {йис} 'year' [Genko 2005: 80]; cf. also the Khiv expression yis-qʼˈub {йискьуб} 'the whole year' [Genko 2005: 80]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yis {йис} 'year' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185]; an additional synonym is literary yis-qʼˈub {йискьуб}, glossed as 'year, the whole year' in [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185].
TAB_NOTES:
The original meaning of the expression yis-qʼuw / yis-qʼub is apparently 'the whole year' as retained in Southern Tabasaran, although the second element -qʼuw / -qʼub is not clear.
NCED: 975. Distribution: This case is somewhat difficult, since there are several similar forms for 'year' and 'old', attested in Lezgian languages.
The first one is *sːän [dir.] / *sːänɨ- [obl.] [NCED: 975], meaning 'year' in Archi, South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), lost in the rest of the languages.
The second is *yisː [dir.] / *yisːä- [obl.] [NCED: 968] which denotes 'year' in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi); in these languages, the derived adjectival stem *yisːV-rV- 'old' is also present. In Udi and West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the paronymous adjective *yisːV 'old' is attested (see forms in [NCED: 968]).
Finally, the Caucasian Albanian-Udi form usen 'year' should originate from something like *(y)Vsän.
Two internal Lezgian scenarios can be proposed, neither of them completely satisfactory.
1) The non-East Lezgian forms for 'year', reconstructed as *sːän in [NCED: 975], actually look like the nominal derivative *yisːä-n with reduction of the first syllable in all languages except for Caucasian Albanian-Udi. Caucasian Albanian-Udi usen 'year' can only originate from *yisːä-n, but not from *sːän (the development *yi- > Udi u- is attested in other roots as well, e.g., 'bone' q.v., 'heart' q.v.). The nominal word-formative suffix -n is well attested in Lezgian, see [Alekseev 1985: 44 f.]. This suffix, however, was originally the genitive ending. Thus we should suppose that two synonymous stems coexisted in Proto-Lezgian: *yisː [dir.] / *yisːä- [obl.] 'year' (retained only in East Lezgian) and *yisːä-n 'year' < *'of year' (retained in all the other languages, including both outliers). The Proto-Lezgian adjective *yisːV 'old' was derived from the same root ('year' > 'old'); in East Lezgian, it was additionally modified with the common r-suffix: *yisːV-rV- 'old'.
2) Two unrelated stems are to be reconstructed for Proto-Lezgian: *sːän 'year' and *yisːV 'old'. East Lezgian *yisː [dir.] / *yisːä- [obl.] 'year' is a back formation due to contamination of two original roots (the derivation 'year' > 'old' is typologically not so rare, but the opposite direction seems more problematic). After such a contamination at the Proto-East Lezgian level, the new Proto-East Lezgian adjective *yisːV-rV- 'old' was introduced. The situation with Caucasian Albanian-Udi usen 'year' (which implies a protoform like *yisːän) is similar, although less obvious: usen 'year' could represent a contaminated hybrid of *sːän 'year' and *yisː-V 'old'.
External comparison suggests that the second scenario is preferable: cf. Lak šin 'year'.