Комментарии: PAT *mǝgʷa; Ub. def. a-nǝ́ḳʷ. A complicated case of correspondences between AA and Ub.: we must assume a secondary deglottalisation in PAT (for reasons which are not yet clear) and a dissimilative change *m- > n- before a labiovelar in Ub. (we should note that roots of the type mVKʷV are indeed very rare in Ub.). Comparison of Ub. nǝḳʷǝ́ with PAK *ḳʷác̣ǝ 'intestines' (Шагиров 1, 217) is not persuasive.
Комментарии: For PAT two compounds may be reconstructed: a) *naṗǝ-mǝxǝ 'fingernail' (*naṗǝ 'hand'), whence Abaz. naṗχǝ, Abkh. a-naṗχǝ́-c, Bz. a-naṗxǝ́-ć/a-napxǝ́-ś (with an additional suffixed -ć); b) *š́aṗǝ-mǝxǝ 'toenail' (*š́aṗǝ 'foot'), whence Abaz. š́amχǝ, Abkh. a-š́aṗχǝ́-c, Bz. a-š́aṗxǝ́-ć/a-š́apxǝ́-ś/a-š́amxǝ́-ś.
Initial *m- is clearly visible in the second compound, while in the first
it had been lost completely because of dissimilation with the initial n-.
PAT *x goes back to several PWC consonants (*ƛ̣,*ƛ,*ʎ(*ʎ:),*x); *-ʎ- is
chosen here because of EC counterparts. Abdokov (1983, 77) compares the AA
form with PAK *(p)χʷá-mba 'finger' which is semantically dubious and
Комментарии: Considering the EC parallels (with the meaning 'fruit stone, seed') it seems possible to compare also Kab. kʷǝ-mǝLa 'seed inside a fruit stone, inside (of a fruit)'.
Комментарии: The word is present only in compounds a-mǝrgʷǝ́ź-pħʷa 'a sort of plum', a-mǝrgʷǝ́ź-ṭama 'a sort of peach'. Although found only in Abkh., the root has interesting parallels in EC.
Комментарии: PAT *cʷǝ-mǝsa (cf. also Bzyb. a-č̌-msá; the first part of the compound reflects the root "fire", see *mAc̣ʷa). The Ubykh form is also a compound, with a not quite clear first component (perhaps it can be identified with pa- "beech-tree", and the whole word originally means "tinder made of tree fungus").
Комментарии: PAT *mǝʕʷa; PAK *ʁʷa-gʷǝ́ (a compound of *ʁʷa 'road' + *gʷǝ 'surface, centre < *heart'); Ub. def. á-mʁ́a.
All attempts to etymologise the AK word from inside (treating *ʁʷa as 'dry' [Яковлев 1941, Kuipers 1960] or 'hole' [Aбитов 1948]) are unacceptable; see Shagirov 1, 132-133.
Комментарии: PAT *na-ṗǝ 'hand' (for -ṗǝ see PWC *ṗA) is obviously a dissimilation from *ma-ṗǝ. The root *ma is clearly seen in compounds like *ma-cʷA 'finger' (Abkh. a-ma-čá, Abaz. ma-čʷǝ), Abkh. a-ma-χʷár 'arm' etc.
Outside AT the same root (with the general meaning "extremity") can be probably discovered within the common WC designation of "knee": AT *mǝ-qA (Abkh. a-š́a-mχǝ́, Bz. a-š́a-mχǝ́, Abaz. š́a-mqa); Ub. ʎa-mā-ša (where the first part is the PWC root for 'foot, leg' q.v. and the last part is the PWC root for 'head': the whole compound can thus be interpreted as "head of leg's extremity"). In AK this root has survived only within the compound *ʎa-gʷa(n)ža-mǝ-śħa 'kneeling' (*ʎa-gʷa(n)ža is the PAK word for 'knee'). Thus Abdokov's (1983, 79) comparison of PAT *mǝ-qA with an isolated Akhvakh form (Akhv. muq̇u 'knee') should be rejected.
Комментарии: PAT *č́a 'to eat; bread, wheat' (cf. also Abkh. a-č́a-rá 'to eat', a-č́á-ra-ʒ / a-č́a-rǝ́-ʒ 'wheat' [lit. 'seed of bread']); PAK *mač́ǝ́.
Despite Shagirov (1, 268) PAK *mač́ǝ́ is not connected with PAT *mǝxǝ 'field, harvest' q.v. We prefer the older etymology of Rogava (1956, 34). The disappearance of *mV- in PAT must be explained by the fact that the root became verbal in PAT ('to eat') - and verbal roots can not begin with *m-.
Комментарии: PAT *mǝɣǝ. The Ub. reflex is partially reduplicated (maʁǝ́ʁ-;mǝʒ́ǝ means 'thorn'). The correspondence PAT *ɣ : Ub. ʁ points to PWC *G or *ɣ.
Комментарии: PAT *mAra; PAK *t:ǝʁá; Ub. def. á-ndʁa.
PAT and Ub. show traces of a nasal prefix (cf. 'fire' etc.). In PAT *mArAʕa would be expected: we may suppose that the final *-ʕa was reinterpreted as the beginning of the following verb in frequent phrases like Abaz. amara ʕac̣c̣iṭ 'sun goes up', maraʕačḳarǝc̣ra 'sunrise', maraʕašǝrta 'blazing sun' etc. Other ways of relating AT forms to AK (see Шагиров 1, 153 with literature) are probably faulty.
The relationship of PAK *t:ǝʁá 'sun' and *t:ǝʁʷá-sa 'yesterday' (Ad. tǝʁʷās, Kab. dǝʁʷāsa) may be considered, but still remains questionable (see the discussion in Shagirov 1, 154, Abdokov 1983, 100-101).
