Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Tenseness of -x- in Lak. is unknown (attested only in the syllable-final position), thus a reconstruction of both *-ʎ- ( > Lak. x) and *-x- ( > Lak. x:) is possible.
A reconstruction *bĕnʎ_V is also possible; in this case one could also compare HU *pāl- (Hurr. pāl-, Urart. pal- or pāl-) "to pronounce, to tell" (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 17).
Notes: Cf. also Hurr. kul- 'to say, to pronounce solemnly', see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 54. The EC-WC comparison seems satisfactory both semantically and phonetically (although the reason for loss of labialisation in PWC is not quite clear: perhaps it is the other way round, and we should reconstruct *=agĂl with secondary labialisation in PEC - e.g., under the influence of the 1st class marker *u-). Shagirov (1,161) is of course right in refuting Balkarov's comparison of the Adygh form with Akhv. ž- (žab-) 'to read' (Balkarov 1964, 100).
Cf. also the HU evidence: HU *(j)es- (nom./erg. > Hurr. iš-te nom., iža-š erg., Ur. ješǝ), *so- (obl. > Hurr. žo-/žu-, Ur. šo-).
The PNC 1-st p. pronoun needs some comments. Like other personal pronouns, it is characterized by unique phonetic features (voiced fricative in PNC, the development *z > *d in Av.-And.-Tsez., Darg. and Lak. /where *d > t:/). However, forms with *d- certainly can not be kept apart from forms with *z, since morphologically they match each other very well.
The direct stem may be safely reconstructed as *zō, sporadically with a pronominal suffix *-n - *zōn (cf. PA *di-n, PL *zo-n; on Lak. nu and Darg. nu see *nV). A possible trace of *-n is also the -ǝ vowel in PC: it probably reflects *-ǝ̃ < *-ō-n with loss of nasalization (without it *-ɨ would be expected in PC). The vowel -u- in Av. (du-n) and Darg. (du) should best be explained by the influence of the 2-d p. pro- noun q.v.
The evidence of PN, PHU, PL and Khin. allows to recons- truct three different oblique stems for the 1-st p. pronoun. The one is *zā- /PL *za- = PN *sa-(*sā-)/, the other - *ʔez(V) /PL *-ez = PHU *(j)es- = PN *ʔas = Khin. as/; finally, the third is *ʔiz(V) /PL gen. *-iz = Khin. i/e/. It is most pro- bable that the third stem is reflected in Darg. *di-, PC *di-, PA *di- (where it lost the initial vowel and became the gene- ral oblique stem). In Lak. and HU, where the obl. stem is t:u- and *so- respectively, it is probably due to a merger of PEC dir. *zō- and obl. *zā-.
We may present the following solution for this very complicated picture. The original ergative was *ʔez(V), preserved in PN as *ʔas; in PHU it became also nominative (merging of erg./nom. in pronouns is rather usual in ergative languages). In PL and Khin. this stem shifted to dative - which is parallel to the general shift of the PEC ergative case in *-s_V > PL dative *-s: (note, however, that in Khin. the erg. form jä probably still reflects the same stem *ʔez(V)). The obl. stem *zā- then took upon itself ergative functions in PL. Finally, the original genitive stem *ʔiz(V) was preserved as such in PL, Khin and (with vowel loss) in PD, PA and PC; in all other languages it was superseded by the general oblique stem *zā- (sometimes even by the dir. stem *zō-).
To sum up: PEC (PNC) dir. stem *zō(-n); erg. stem *ʔez(V); gen. stem *ʔiz(V); general oblique stem *zā-.
Notes: A Lak-Darg. isogloss. The etymology is not very reliable, because the forms are very isolated, and do not fit into the paradigm of the 1st person pronoun reconstructed on other evidence (see *zō).
If we compare the paradigm of the 1st p. pr. in Dargwa dialects, it becomes probable that PD *nu is a secondary development < *du (or, possibly, *du-n, cf. PL *zon): cf. Ak. nom. nu, erg. nuni, dat. nab vs. Chir. nom. du, erg. di-c:e, dat. damī. Still, PD *nu- in the 1st p. plural *nu-š:a stays unexplained, as well as Lak. na (also < *da-n or *t:a-n, cf. the obl. stem t:u- ?).
An etymological possibility would be to consider the morpheme *nɨ̆ as originally a collective plural pronoun: cf. its use in PD *nu-s:a 'we' (exclusive), *nu-x:a 'we' (inclusive), *nu-š:a 'you (plur.)', quite parallel to Av. ni-ž,ni-ƛ: and nu-ž. Its usage in the 1st person plural could have influenced the 1st person singular in Lak. and Darg., and this influence was strengthened by a chance of secondary nasalisation (e. g. PD *nu < *du-(n)).
Notes: Cf. also HU *we- (Hurr. erg. we-š, gen. we-we; not attested in Ur.). The same stem is used as a pronominal enclytic (Hurr., Ur. -w) and as a verbal ending of the 2-d pers. sing. (Hurr. -ū/-ō, Ur. -au).
The PN form is somewhat problematical: it is the 1-st p. pl. inclusive pronoun, and may belong here if this meaning is secondarily developped from "thou"(+"I").
The direct stem is easily reconstructed as *uō or *uō-n (cf. *zō,*zō-n for the 1-st pers.), with nasal assimilation in PA (*mi-n < *wi-n) and PC (*mǝ < *wǝ-n). One of the oblique stems (most probably genitive) was also formed from this root (cf. HU *we-/*-Vw, Lak. wi- /in Lak. the direct stem was replaced by another stem, ina, and only the original oblique stem was preserved/, PL *-iu, Khin. wi < PEC *ʔiuV- (or *ʔeuV- ). However, for other cases suppletive forms were used (*ʁwV̄- / *ʔŏʁwV- and *du- q.v.); PL *wa- and Khin. erg. wa are probably innovations (by analogy with *za- in the 1-st person). See Trubetzkoy 1930, 273; Абдоков 1983, 140.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The stem originally formed part of the suppletive paradigm of the 2d person pronoun. We can securely reconstruct the oblique stem *ʔŏʁwV, reflected in PN erg. *ʔaħ, Tsakh. gen. j-ɨʁ- and Khin. dat. oχ. It was probably used in the ergative case (the shift to genitive in Tsakhur must be secondary, because the original 2d person genitive is more or less securely reconstructed as *ʔeu_V- or *ʔiu_V, see under *u_ō). As for the stem *ʁwV̄- itself, it was either used as ergative or (interchanging with *uō) also as nominative.
The complete paradigm of the second person pronoun in PEC can thus be reconstructed as *u_ō (nom., perhaps interchanging with *ʁwV̄), *ʔŏʁwV (erg.), *ʔeu_V-/*ʔiu_V- (gen.), *du- (dat.). There is, however, no guarantee that this situation reflects the common NC state of things, because Western Caucasian languages do not reveal any traces of the stems *ʁwV̄ and *du- (reflecting only *u_ō).
Notes: The common NC exclusive 1st person plural pronoun. Some languages have preserved traces of alternating stems *ži(-n) (dir.), *ža- (obl.), *ʔižV (gen.). [There may have also existed an ergative form *ʔež-, but since the Nakh languages, usually preserving the archaic ergative pronominal stems, have lost this pronoun, it can not be reconstructed.]
In some languages (Lak., Ub., some Lezg. languages and Darg. dialects) this has become the only form of the 1st person plural pronoun (having superseded the old inclusive forms); in other languages (Nakh, Tsezian) the process was reversed and original exclusive forms were superseded by inclusive ones.
See Trubetzkoy 1930, 273. Abdokov (1983, 137) strangely enough compares the Ubykh form š́ǝ- with the PEC inclusive *Lǟ, which is quite impossible for phonetic reasons.
Notes: This is a common EC inclusive 1st person plural pronoun. It is preserved as such in Av.-Andian languages, in some archaic Darg. dialects (Chirag), Khinalug and most Lezghian languages. In PTs it has superseded the old exclusive pronoun*ži and has become the only 1st person plural. The same process must have occurred in PN (where there is no trace of *ži) - the morpheme *Lǟ > *lχō > *tχō became the only 1st person plural pronoun. Later, however, a new inclusive pronoun (*waj - originally from the 2d sing. *u_ō, "with you") was introduced in PN, and *tχō became, in its turn, exclusive.
The paradigm of *Lǟ can be reconstructed as *Lǟ-(n) (dir. - cf. PL *Łä-n, Khin. ki-n, PN *tχō), *La- (dat. - cf. PL *Ła-, PN *tχa-), *ʔīL- (gen. - PL *-iŁ-) and *ʔēL- (erg. - PN *ʔāχu). The Av.-And. and Tsez. forms for the most part reflect the original ergative (and/or genitive) stem.
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 239; 1930, 273 (although there is hardly any connection with PAT *ħa- 'we').
Notes: The PEC paradigm can be reconstructed as *źwĕ (dir.), *ʔeźw- (erg., cf. PN *ʔašV, and PL *-eǯʷ /shifted to dative, the same as with other pronouns/), *ʔiźw- (gen., cf. PL *-iǯʷ), *źwă- (obl., cf. PL *ǯʷa-). PWC *sʷV (as seen from the non-palatalised *sʷ) reflects rather one of the non-direct stems. As with other plural pronouns, Avaro-Ando-Tsezian languages also reflect a non-direct stem (gen. *ʔiźw- or dat. *ʔeźw-) with the class prefixes *w- or *u_- (in Akhv. uš-di). The initial nasal in Avar, PTs (and also PD) may reflect the original EC pronominal stem *nɨ̆ (q.v.) (which could have possibly denoted collective plural); labial m- in some Avar dialects (cf. Chad. muž) and PTs *miž(:)e is probably due to the influence of the 2d person singular pronoun (Av. mun, PTs *mǝ).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level (there are no traces of this pronoun in PWC). The root is well preserved in the Western (Av.-And.-Tsez.) area, and has almost disappeared in other languages, except Archi and Darg. dialects. It must have been originally the dative stem in the complicated suppletive paradigm of the 2d p. sing. pronoun (dir. *u_ō / *ʁwV̄, erg. *ʔoʁwV-, gen. *ʔiu_-, dat. *dū-). It has preserved its function in Darg., shifted to genitive in PL (Archi; note that Arch. dative wa-s is an obvious innovation), and became the general oblique stem in Av.-And.-Tsezian.
Notes: The opposition of *ʒ́ĭ 'self' (1-2 cl., animated) : *čŭ 'self' (3-4th cl., unanimated) is well preserved in PL. Most other languages have preserved only one of these roots.
The development *č- > c- in Lak. is irregular (typical for pronominal morphemes, cf. *čwi 'who, what' > Lak. cu-,ci-). It is unclear also, whether we should relate here PN *šā '(one)self' (Chech. šā, Ing. še, Bacb. ša-jrwa) - phonetically absolutely irregular [perhaps it should be rather compared with PL *šä- 'demonstr. pronoun, that']. The semantics of the PAT subject version is well explained if we assume its origin from a pronoun; the phonetic side is quite satisfactory.
Notes: A common Av.-And.-Tsezian morpheme, with only sporadic parallels from other languages. Besides Khinalug, possible traces of this root can be perhaps found in Arch. inž 'self' (where -n- is absolutely superfluous if we talk about reflexes of *ʒ́ĭ q.v. - thus it may be an old compound of *HinV- + *ʒ́ĭ). If this morpheme is not an Av.-And.-Tsez. innovation, it must have played the role of the oblique base of one of the PEC reflexive pronouns (see *ʒ́ĭ and *č[ŭ]).
Notes: A common NC reflexive pronoun; the EC and WC forms were first compared by Trubetzkoy (1930, 274). See also Абдоков 1983, 140. PL preserves the paradigm of this pronoun in the most detailed form: as seen from the Lezghian evidence, *ʒ́ĭ was originally an oblique stem (followed by class and case suffixes), while the direct stem was *-ĭʒ́V - i. e., most probably, the same *ʒ́ĭ, but with prefixed class markers.
Av.-And.-Tsezian languages use the stem *HinV- (q.v.) as the oblique stem. It is possible that *ʒ́ĭ was a general oblique stem, while *HinV- was used in the dative/genitive cases.
Notes: The vocalic reconstruction is somewhat uncertain (probably, due to old Ablaut). We may note that this interrogative stem is mostly (although not always) used in oblique cases, notably ergative.
Notes: One of several interrogative stems reconstructed for PEC. It has a general interrogative meaning and is most often used in oblique cases.
The root *hī- is frequently encountered in combination with *-nV-, probably as an oblique stem construction *hīnV- 'whose, which, what'. We have mentioned above the secondary development *hīnV- > nV- in some Lezgian languages, but the same process probably had taken place in other languages too. Cf. PA *(h)i-n- (in *(h)in-da 'when' > And. inna-l, Cham. inna, Tind. hin-da-la, God. in-da-q:i,*(h)inV-l 'where' > And. inu-l, Tind. ini-la etc.) = PTs *hɨ̃tǝ / *nitǝ ( < *hini-tǝ ) 'when' (Inkh. ito, Tsez. neti, Gin. nete, Bezht. nito, Gunz. hɨ̃dǝ), PTs *na / *nija 'where' (Inkh., Tsez. na, Gin. ni, Bezht. nā, Gunz. nijõ). It is significant that an identical combination *-a-nǝ- is also attested in WC languages: PAT *-anǝ- 'when' (a verbal infix > Abkh. -an(ǝ)-, Abaz. -an(ǝ)-), Ub. aná-(n) 'at the time, when...". We can thus safely reconstruct the morpheme combination *hīnV- for the PNC level.
Notes: A common NC interrogative stem. It is used mostly for animated (more rarely - for unanimated) objects in EC languages, but has become an interrogative modifier in PWC (PAT). See Trubetzkoy 1930, 274.
Notes: Cf. also HU: Hurr. edǝ 'body, thing', Ur. edi- 'thing' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 26). It is not quite clear which meaning is original - 'thing' or 'what', because both are rather widely reflected.
We should also mention a quite isolated form: Lak. ta 'when', which has an irregular devoiced t-, but possibly reflects the same EC root.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. As an independent pronoun this root probably served for the direct base of the inanimate pronoun 'what'; it also served as the root of the derived PEC *čw[ĕ]-mV 'how much' and in some other derived interrogative pronouns.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. This pronoun is not widely spread and must have had restricted usage in PEC; however, it certainly must be reconstructed.
