Comments: PAK *bʁʷǝ; the Ub. form contains a frequent singular suffix -ḳ́(a). Shagirov (1977) compares the AK form to PAT *ɣʷǝ 'board', Ub. ʁʷǝ 'post' (PWC *Gʷǝ), which seems much less trustworthy. The initial *b- of the PAK form is a historical prefix.
Comments: PAT *bǝž́a- (also used as a preverb 'between, inside' = Ub. bLa-). In PAK the preverb *bLa- means 'past (smth.)'. Its original meaning must have been 'near', cf. *bLa-ʁá 'near', and it has hardly any connection with PAK *bLa 'arm' q.v. In spite of some semantic difficulties we think that it is possible to relate PAK *bLa- 'near, past' to the Ub. and PAT forms (a semantic shift of 'inside' to 'environs').
Comments: The Abaz. form goes back to *cʷǝ-mǝla, where cʷǝ- is probably the PAT verb root *cʷǝ 'to plane' ("planed ladder"). PAK *bLa (with *pχa- 'wood'; cf. also Kab. qā-bLa id. with *qa 'grave'). The Adygh compound *pχa-bLa was also borrowed in Ub. pχabLa.
The root has absolutely nothing to do with *bLa 'arm' or *bLa- 'to plait' (see Shagirov 2,20).
Comments: PAK *bǝLǝmǝ; Ub. def. á-bǝj. The correspondence PAK *L : Ub. -j- points to PWC *l; -mǝ in PAK is a suffix (or some obscure compound). Shagirov (1977, 103) proposes for the Adygh form a loan from Turk. (bilim 'knowledge'), but it seems absolutely unacceptable for semantic reasons.
Comments: PAT *bAʕʷǝ, PAK *p:q:ǝ (with dissimilatory delabialisation). Ub. pqǝ (á-pq) 'bone' is considered (see Шагиров 2,48) an Adygh loan (as also Abaz. ṗq̇ǝ 'carcass, skeleton'), which must be true (otherwise we should expect pharyngealised -qI(ʷ)- in Ub.).
Meaning:1 post, log, pile 2 pilaster, post, pillar
Abkhaz:a-bǝ́q̇ʷ
Adyghe:p:q:aw
Kabardian:pq:ow, bǝq:ow
Comments: PAT *bVq̇ʷǝ (cf. also Bz. a-báq̇ʷ); PAK *bǝq̇:á-wǝ / *p:q:á-wǝ. Despite Klimov (1968, 292) there are no reasons to consider the Abkhaz form an Adygh loan. Kumakhov's etymology (1964,126) - PAK *b(ǝ)q:áwǝ from *p:q:ǝ 'corpus, skeleton' - seems dubious, first of all because of the Kab. form bǝq:ow (there's no parallel form *bǝq:ǝ 'skeleton' in Kab.). Very dubious is the comparison with Ub. bǝq̇Iʷ 'thick' (Shagirov 2, 47).
Since there is no Ub. cognate, it is impossible to determine whether the first vowel in PWC was nasalized or not. Somewhat unclear is the status of the PAK *-wǝ: it is either a suffix (in this case *bǝq:áwǝ < *bǝq:ʷá-wǝ), or part of the root which has yielded labialisation in Abkh. (*bVq̇ʷǝ < *bVq̇ǝwǝ).
Comments: PAT *pǝśǝ-ʕa- (cf. also Bz. a-pśā́,a-pśā́-ṭʷ 'bird', Abaz. pssʕa-č̣ʷǝ id.); -ʕa is obviously a suffix. PAK *bzǝ-wǝ́ (where -wǝ is an archaic diminutive suffix).
Reconstruction of PAT *ś (and, therefore, PWC *š) is based on Abkh. Bzyb. evidence quoted in Marr's dictionary; since Bghazhba has not included the word in his book, it may well be Marr's misspelling - in that case we must reconstruct simply PAT *pǝsǝ-ʕa- and PWC *bǝsA.
Comments: PAT *bǝzǝ (cf. also Bz. á-bz). PAK *bza 'language'; in the meaning 'tongue' PAK employed a compound *bza-gʷǝ́ (lit. 'tongue's center') > Ad. bzagʷǝ, Kab. bzagʷ. In Ub. the variants bźa and bza coexist, the latter being obviously loaned from AK.
Comments: PAK *tħa-bza (with *tħa- 'ear'); cf. also Kab. ʎā-bza 'mark (on bird's feet)'. Shagirov 1, 244 considers -bza here to be derived from bzǝ-n 'to cut' (q.v.); the external parallels, however, provide another explanation.
