Despite Shagirov 2, 53 PAK *ṗč̣́a-/ *ṗč̣́ǝ- 'to cut, incise' should be kept apart from the homonymous *ṗč̣́a- 'to weed', which has its own etymology (q.v.). We should note that the semantic development 'to cut' > 'to weed', proposed by Shagirov, is highly unlikely (the basic idea of weeding is doing it by hand, not by knife or any other instrument).

    It is most probable that the same root is present in PAK *ʎa-ʁʷǝ- 'to see' (Ad. ʎa-ʁʷǝ-n, Kab. ʎā-ʁʷǝ-n), although the second component is not quite clear. This would be an additional argument in favour of the historical prefixed nature of *p-.

    PAK *pš́a- 'cook' is reflected in Kab. pśa-f̣a- 'cook (v.)', pśā-f̣a 'cook (n.)', Ad. pš́a-rǝħ (Bzhed. pš́arāħǝ) 'cook; young man serving elder', pśa-rǝħa- 'cook (v.)' (suffixes are not quite clear both in Ad. and Kab.).

    PAK *ṗč̣́a-n-ṭa- 'sweat, to sweat' (used also as a verb in Ad. ṗč̣́anṭa-n, Kab. ṗṣ́anṭa-n 'to sweat') : a compound with *ṭa 'liquid' in the second part (see PWC *ṭV). In Kab. we have a further compound with -ps(ǝ) 'water' (in Ad. there also exists a corresponding form ṗč̣́anṭa-ps).

    The correspondence PAT *-x- (before affricate) : PAK *č̣́ is unambiguosly pointing to PWC *ƛ̣. Since there is no Ub. reflex, it is also possible to reconstruct nasalisation in PWC.

    The etymology of the PAK form proposed by Shagirov (1977, 2, 53: "to weed" + "to dig") is absolutely unacceptable.

    WC languages reflect numerous variants with variation p/b and r/l. If Osset. barc / barcä 'mane' really goes back to Proto-Iran. *barša- (see Abayev 1, 237; doubts are raised by Osset. -c-), then the forms PAK *bǝráca and PAT *pǝrǝcʷǝ should be regarded as Alanisms; otherwise the direction of loan should be reversed and the WC forms analysed on WC ground (cf. PAT *bǝra and PWC *cǝ / *cʷǝ 'hair').

    Abdokov (1983, 73) compares the WC forms with PEC *balV 'wool' (q.v.), which seems phonetically less probable. He also cites Chech. =älla 'hairy' - which is in reality a participle of =āl- 'to grow' and does not belong here at all.

    In all three subgroups of WC we have a delabialized uvular (after the initial labial). The labialisation, however, is to be reconstructed - otherwise (in case of PWC *q́) Ub. would have q́, not χ́, or (in case of PWC *χ́), the Adygh languages would have ħ, not χ. We can not distinguish between PWC *q́ʷ and *χ́ʷ here because of the Adygh form (the cluster *pχ-, because of a specific development of *q in clusters, can go back to both *pχ- and *pq-).

    Additional note: there is an enigmatic form in EC: Kar. miʁaža 'wooden spoon'. It resembles Ub. mǝχ́āc̣ʷ and Abkh. a-mħáč̣, but it can not correspond to them phonetically (furthermore, we have demonstrated above that the WC forms in question have a complex morphological nature). Perhaps, we deal with an old loanword in Kar.?

    In Ub. the root means 'a k. of big plum'.

    The WC languages have yet another root with close meaning, but without the initial labial: cf. Abaz. ħʷa-sá, Abkh. a-ħʷa-sá 'wild plum' (in Bzyb. we have a-pħʷaśá / a-bħʷaśá - obviously, a result of merging *pǝħʷa 'plum' and *ħʷaśa 'wild plum'); *-śa is a frequent component in names of plants. We could compare also Bzhed. χǝrc 'peach' (as opposed to other terms with *q:- or *pχʷ-, see above). Although we can not absolutely exclude the possibility of a secondary loss of the initial labial in these forms (see Shagirov 2, 229), it is still possible to reconstruct a separate PWC root *χ(ʷ)V (or *χ́(ʷ)V, *χI(ʷ)V ) 'wild plum' opposed to *pǝqʷV plum. This root (but not Abkh. a-pħʷá, pace Lomtatidze 1961, 116-117) could be compared to PL *χʷen: 'plum, wild plum' (Lezg. χʷat, dial. χʷad, Tab. χut, dial. χud, Ag. χut, dial. χur, χud, Rut. χäd, Tsakh. χon, Kryz. χed, Bud. χed).