Comments: PAT *qa (used only with preverbs) 'to suffice, be enough'; cf. also Abkh. á-mč́-χa-ra 'sufficient strength'. In PAK the root is used only in compounds: Ad. nǝba-q, Kab. nǝba-q: 'pot-bellied', Ad. ca-mǝ-q, Kab. ʒa-mǝ-q: 'with large teeth' (see Kuipers 1975, 64). The semantic correlation "sufficient" : "large, big" is quite common.
Comments: PAT *ṭʷǝ-ʕʷa; PAK *bźa-q:ʷá (the etymology of *bźa- see under *bǝ̃źʷa). Shagirov (1, 88) thinks that -q:ʷa here is the same as in *ʎa-q:ʷá 'foot, leg'. This could be true if the compound had meant originally 'toe-nail' (lit. "foot-horn"), cf. an analoguous semantic development in Balto-Slavic (*noga). The same root may be discovered in other derivates like Kab. q:ʷā-gʷa 'hornless, one-horned', Ad., Kab. q:ʷā-pa 'corner, angle', Kab. q:ʷā-ps 'root' etc.
Ub. q́a and PAK *q:ʷa point unambiguously to PWC *q:́ʷa; however, in PAT we would rather expect *qʷa than *ʕʷa. The reason of the irregularity is that the PAT form must have originally been a compound: 'two horns', PWC *tqI:́ʷǝ-q:́ʷa which underwent a dissimilation and was transformed into *ṭʷǝqI:́ʷa > PAT *ṭʷǝʕʷa. In this way the numeral retained here the initial dental, which was lost in the independent position (PAT *ʕʷǝ 'two' q.v.).
Comments: PAK *q:ʷa. The Ub.-Ad. comparison see in Mészáros 1934,377, Shagirov 1,231 (where he also adduces Ub. q̇Iʷa 'cave' and Abkh. a-q̇ʷara 'rocky river bank' which should be kept apart). This root also should be separated from PAT *ḳʷarV 'ravine, river' (despite Shagirov ibid.) and from Ub. q̇ʷadá 'gutter' (despite Abdokov 1973,55).
Comments: PAK *q:ʷa; Ub. def. á-qʷa. Dumézil 1932, 124-125 compares also Abkh. *ʕʷǝ 'man', which we prefer to relate to Ub. ʁʷa 'self' (see WC *ʁʷV). See Shagirov 1, 231.
Comments: PAK *ħanṭVr-q:ʷáq:ʷa (with reduction of the second part in Ad.). Etymology of the first part of the compound is not quite clear (cf. PAT *ada 'frog' > Abkh. áda-ʁ́, Abaz. ada (?); or Chech. ünṭa- in ünṭa-pħid 'tortoise' (?)).
Comments: PAT *ħa; PAK *qʷǝ-źǝ́ (on the meaning of *źǝ see *ž́ʷǝ). Shagirov (1, 238-239) justly notices that Trubetzkoy (1930, 276) was wrong in separating the Abkh. and Ub. forms and relating them to different EC roots. The correspondence PAT *ħ : PAK *qʷ : Ub. χ́ points regularly to PWC *q́ʷ.
See Mészáros 1934, 378; Balkarov 1969, 177; Shagirov 1, 238-239.
Comments: PAT *q̇́ǝ; PAK *ʡa-jV́. Ub. has a compound with *c̣ʷV "dirt" q.v. Unacceptable is Dumézil's (Dumézil 1963) etymology of the PAK form as "hand" + "bad". The PAK form is rather a compound analogous to Ub., and the component ʡa here has nothing to do either with PAK *ʡa-c̣ʷǝ "sweet" or with PAK *ʡa "hand". PAK *ʡ regularly goes back to PWC *q̇́.
Comments: PAT *q̇V (in Abkh. there also exists a variant a-pq̇-rá; cf. also a-t-q̇a-rá 'to cut out', showing that t- and p- are prefixes). Ub. a-s-q̇ǝ́-n. Abdokov (1983, 161) compares also PAK *wǝʡa- 'to wound' (Ad., Kab. wǝʡa-) which is rather dubious for phonetic reasons (-q:- would be normally expected).
Comments: PAK *q:ǝcá. The PAK *q: can go back to PWC *q̇, *q:, *q̇I or *q:I; the PAK *-c- - to *c, *ć or *č. Shagirov's etymology (*q:ǝ 'plum' + *cǝ 'hair', see Shagirov 1, 229-230) is hardly acceptable, especially in view of the EC evidence.
In the Adygh languages there is a constant interaction of two roots: *q:ǝca 'peach' and *pχʷǝ- 'plum' (see *pǝqʷV). The Shaps. dialect has always pχʷǝ- (pχʷǝca 'peach', pχʷǝśʷṭa 'plum'); other dialects tend to have q:ǝ- (cf. Ad. q:ǝca 'peach', q:ǝṗc̣a 'plum').
