COMMENT: This root (originally meaning 'person, man') is seldom used independently (only in PA and some Tsezian languages). In EC languages it is most frequently used in a compound with *ćwijo 'man' ('man-person'); in PWC it became a morpheme of Nomina Agentis ("person doing smth."). The etymology seems phonetically and semantically quite plausible.
COMMENT: See Abdokov 1983, 89. Cf. also Urart. aršǝ 'young people, children' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 36). One of the widely spread nominal stems with changing class prefixes. The WC evidence suggests that it may have been originally verbal ("to bear"), but in all modern languages it is used only as a noun. Phonetic correspondences are quite regular; the only problem is Lak. -s (-š would be expected normally). The seemingly classless forms (PC *ʔožǝ, Lak. ars, PD *ʔurši, Khin. ši) reflect the PEC form with the weak male class prefix *u_=ɨšwĔ; the only form which can reflect an original prefixless stem is the PL plural *š:i-p:V ( < *šʷi-bV). In Lak., Darg. and Urart. the stem obtained a secondary medial -r- (no trace of it in any other language); it can not be a feminine class affix, because the word means only 'son, boy' in these languages. This -r- probably reflects an oblique stem with the *-rV suffix (*-ɨ̆šwĔ-rV- > *-ɨ̆ršwV).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The form *dwirχE, reflected in PD and PL, probably goes back to an earlier *u_V-dirχE (with the 1st class prefix *uV-); cf. PHU *wutqi,*witēqi 'son' reflected in Hurr. futqi, fitēqi (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 20).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Despite some expressive transformations, correspondences are basically regular and the root seems reliable.
The root was borrowed into Kumyk from some Caucasian language: Kum. kurägä 'apricot', whence it was loaned back into some EC languages (Tsez., Gin., Bezht., Gunz. kurak, Darg. Chir. qurek:a 'apricot') and Russian (курага).
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Except for PL *-p (*-ṗ would be expected; an aberrant development in Archi?) all correspondences are regular.
COMMENT: Despite superficial dissimilarity, the EC-WC comparison is phonetically quite regular. The PWC form has regularly lost resonants, but the medial *-j- (reconstructed on basis of the PN reflex *sṭ) has left a trace in the palatalisation of the PWC affricate. In most languages the root means 'autumn', but sometimes also 'winter' or 'spring'; it probably denoted the rainy season in general.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root must have originally denoted some span of time in spring or summer (cf. the specific meaning preserved in Lezg.). It can probably be discovered also in Hurr. compounds like šin-arBu/o 'two years old' (HU *-arwV, see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 64).
COMMENT: It is interesting to note that the roots meaning 'summer' and 'winter' have reversed their meanings in PN. The whole problem of reconstructing seasonal subdivisions in PNC still awaits investigation (there probably existed several major generic terms and a variety of names for relatively short periods of time, just as in modern languages). Despite semantic difficulties, it seems hardly possible to separate the Nakh forms from the rest.
COMMENT: As in many other cases, the PWC form has underwent a dissimilatory delabialisation (*q:ʷ > *q: after the initial labial). Otherwise correspondences are regular.
COMMENT: Reconstructed for the PEC level. In Lak. and Darg. there occurred a nasality metathesis (*=ŏnqVlV > *=ŏqVnV); otherwise correspondences are quite regular.
