Comments: PAK *ƛ̣ǝ. Despite Abayev 2,19-20, Balkarov 1969,171, Shakryl 1968, 30-31, 77 and Shagirov 1,257 the AK word can not be related to PAT *lǝgǝ 'slave; old man'.
Comments: PAK *č̣́ǝ (in compounds with *bǝ 'thick part', *p:q:ǝ 'bone' > Ad. č̣ǝ-pq: 'waist'). The PAK *č̣́ may go back to PWC *ƛ̣, *ƛ̣́ʷ, *č̣́ or *č̣ʷ; we prefer *ƛ̣ only on basis of the external evidence.
Comments: PAT *c̣V (cf. also Bzyb. á-c̣ 'bottom); PAK *č̣́a-; in Ub. the morpheme is used in compounds: ba-ć̣á 'lower part', ša-ć̣á 'pillow' (ša 'head').
The correspondence PAK *č̣́ : PAT *c̣ : Ub. ć̣ points to the PWC lateral *ƛ̣. In PAK, however, there exists also a separate root *č̣a 'bottom' (Ad. č̣a, Kab. ṣ́a) - which can reflect a variant with labialisation *ƛ̣ʷV (perhaps reflecting an early PWC metathesised variant *Hnŏƛ̣ŭ).
Comments: PAK *č̣ǝ. Its regular Ub. correspondence is present in Ub. jǝ-c̣ʷá- 'on the earth' (preverb); reasons for deglottalisation of -c̣ʷ- in the Ub. noun (which is certainly representing the same root) are not yet clear. This root is to be strictly kept apart from PAK *č̣a 'bottom' which has quite different external parallels.
Comments: PAT *č̣ʷa (cf. also Abaz. Ashkh. f̣a). PAK *ṗʡʷa-č̣́á. Only the second part of the PAK word corresponds to PAT *č̣ʷa and Ub. ṗc̣a (this peculiar correspondence - note that this is the only word with it, and likewise the only word in PAT with *č̣ʷ and in Abaz. with f̣!- points unambiguously to the PWC lateral *ƛ̣́ʷ). The first component is not quite clear (perhaps it's PAK *ṗʡʷa 'place' - 'having thin places'?).
PAK *-č̣́a is contained also in *psǝ-n-č̣́á 'light', *za-n-č̣́á 'straight' (originally *'light and thin', 'straight and thin').
Comments: PAK *č̣́ǝ-máxʷa (a compound with *maxʷa 'day, time'). Since only AK forms are attested, the WC reconstruction is tentative and oriented by the external evidence (without it one could also reconstruct *č̣́, *č̣ʷ or *ƛ̣).
Comments: PAK *ja-c̣ʷa (with a frequent pronominal prefix); PAK *ʁʷǝč̣ǝ́. The PAK and Ub. form reflect a PWC compound *ʁ́Iʷǝ-ƛ̣ʷV, where the first part is *ʁ́Iʷǝ 'copper, metal (in general)' (q.v.).
The need to see a colour name in the second part of the AK and Ub. compound is obvious: both in AK and Ub. the name of iron forms part of an opposition - in AK *ʁʷa-pʎá 'metal' + 'red' = 'copper, red copper' : *ʁʷǝ-č̣ǝ́ 'metal' + '?' = 'iron'. In Ub. wǝ-sʷá 'metal' + 'white' = 'copper, bronze' : wǝ-c̣ʷá 'metal' + '?' = 'iron'. If we assume that the Ub. and AK words for 'iron' are genetically related (certainly, the theory of Ub. wǝc̣ʷá being an Adygh loanword, see Shagirov 1, 140, can not be considered seriously), the correspondence PAK *č̣ : Ub. c̣ʷ is unambiguously pointing to the PWC lateral labialised *ƛ̣ʷ, for which the expected PAT correspondence is *c̣ʷ - and we find it in PAT *ja-c̣ʷa 'blue'.
The concept of iron being a "blue metal" is by no means strange: it goes back to one of the earliest varieties of tempered iron (steel), which was in Greek called kúanos (cyan) and was dark-blue in colour (on the etymology of this word and the related Hitt. kuwanna- see under *kwɨ̄wV). We must also mention the widespread Caucasian myth about the birth of the cultural hero from a blue stone - which metaphorically depicts the ritual of tempering iron (see in greater detail Ardzinba 1985).
In view of all this the theory of Yakovlev (1941, 140-141), Shagirov (1, 140-141) who tried to explain PAK *ʁʷǝč̣ǝ́ as "dried (ʁʷǝ-) earth (č̣ǝ)" must be obviously taken as a folk etymology. Far more right was Abdokov (1973, 48) who thought the AK and Ubykh words genetically related and explained *ʁʷǝ- as "metal" and *-č̣ǝ as a colour-name. He proposed to consider the second part as "grey", not specifying, however, what particular root he had in mind (thus invoking Shagirov's criticism). Shagirov is right, indeed, that PAK *č̣́ǝxʷǝ 'light-blue, pale' (Ad. č̣́ǝfǝ, Kab. ṣ́ǝxʷ) can not be involved (it has č̣́, not č̣). For Ubykh Abdokov probably meant the root present in Ub. cʷa-bá 'greyish' - which is actually possible (note a quite analogous variation c̣ʷ / cʷ in the Ub. reflexes of PWC *ƛ̣ʷV 'earth' q.v.).
There is more to be said about the hypothetical PWC *ʁ́Iʷǝƛ̣ʷV 'iron'. Since several authors relate the Hatti language to WC (see, e.g., Ivanov 1985), it seems very tempting to relate *ʁ́Iʷǝƛ̣ʷV to the attested Hatti name for 'iron', χap/walki (with χVw- rendering *ʁ́Iʷ- and -lk- rendering the lateral -ƛ̣-), borrowed in Hurrian as χabalgi, and further - Greek khalkó-s, Balto-Slav. *geleǵ- etc. (see Starostin 1985).
Comments: PAT *ž́ǝ (the Abkh. word is now rarely used and only in the meaning 'flesh, (animal's) carcass'); PAK *Lǝ. Ub. ʁ́a 'meat' (compared by Lafon 1966,24) can not be related for phonetic reasons.
Comments: PAK *La-. Since the PAK and Ub. forms correspond perfectly to each other, Shagirov's (1,242) complicated reasoning and reconstruction of the original meaning "good, to rejoice" seems absolutely unnecessary (to say nothing of linking the root with Abkh. a-gʷǝ-r-ʁ́a-ra which is phonetically impossible).
Comments: PAT *ra (the Abaz. word means properly "nut-tree", cf. Abkh. a-rasá, Bz. a-raśá 'nut-tree'); PAK *da. Meaning of the component -q̇́a in Ub. is not clear. The correspondence PAT *r : PAK *d : Ub. L points to PWC *ĺ.
See Schmidt 1950, 19, Kuipers 1963, 59, Shagirov 1, 145.
Comments: PAT *ž́a-. PAK *ʡʷǝ-La- (a compound either with *ʡʷǝ 'mouth', or *ʡʷa- 'speak', see Shagirov 1,130): the stem is usually used with the causative ʁa-, but cf. the independent usage in Ad. ʡʷǝLa 'silly'. Ub. a-z-Lá-n (cf. also q̇ʷǝ-Lá 'stupid, silly' = Ad. ʡʷǝLa, but possibly a loanword).
Comments: PAK *tħamǝć̣ǝʁʷǝ. Obviously a compound of some kind, but a good explanation is not found yet. (Shagirov 2,83 proposes 'spirit' (*tħa) + 'accompany', Kab. ṣ́ǝʁʷǝ-n - but the latter corresponds to Ad. č̣́ǝʁʷǝ-n < *č̣ǝʁʷǝ-). Despite Abdokov 1982, 83, the AK form should certainly be kept distinct from WC *c̣ʷA 'liver' q.v.
