Comment: Obl. base *neIƛ̣:ʷɨ- (cf. Lezg. niḳi-, Tsakh. nek:ɨ-); cf. also Tsakh. Gelm. noIk (noIki-) which points to labialisation of *ƛ̣:ʷ and pharyngealisation in PL. 4th class in all class-distingushing languages.
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 241 (suggesting also a relationship with And. =eƛ̣:- 'to plough' - which is probably wrong, see PEC *=ērƛ̣_V).
Comment: For labialisation cf. Lezg. Akht. gʷen. Since evidence is rather scanty, the root is difficult to reconstruct. The original form must have been something like *neƛʷ; the Rutul form probably reflects an original plural (cf. Lezg. gener), while in Lezg. there occurred a metathesis.
Comment: Cf. also Tab. Düb. nis:i, Ag. Bursh. nis: (like Tsakh. nis:e, pointing to PL *-s:-). The Kryz form with -ss- is interesting, because Kryz has lost the opposition of tense/weak fricatives; this may be a loanword from Lezg. (before this opposition was lost in Lezg. as well). Most forms reflect a PL suffixed form *nis:aj (or else *nis:ʷäj - to account for vowel labialisation in Lezg. and Bud.); Tab. and Ag. (possibly also Tsakh.), however, reflect a suffixless form *nis:a (cf. also the Ag. obl. stem nisa-). The word belongs to the 4th class in all class-distinguishing languages.
See Бокаpев 1961, 59; Лексика 1971, 209; Гигинейшвили 1977, 119.
Comment: Cf. Lezg. Khl. neq:i, Tab. Kand. niwq:, Düb. niwq:i; perhaps, also Ud. bala-nq:o(j) 'blackberry' (although the meaning of the 1st component, bala-, is not clear). 4th class in Rut. and Tsakh. All the forms point unambiguously to PL *-q̇:-; thus Ag. Rich. nuq̇i 'a k. of berry (костяника)' must be a loanword, probably from Old Lak or some Lak. dialect.
Comment: Cf. also Lezg. Khl. nuc̣, Arch. obl. nac̣a, pl. noc̣or. Obl. base vowel unclear (Rut. Khniukh. nac̣a- is not sufficient for reconstruction). 4th class in Rut., Arch.
Comment: Morphologically seems to be formed from an adverb *nuš-; cf. Rut. šäs-aj "a one-year old lamb" from šäs "last year" (PL *šʷaI-s: q.v.). However, the root was used for denoting a two-year-old animal already in PNC, cf. the external evidence.
Comment: All the listed forms reflect a PL compound *nVḳʷV-c:ʷera (with *c:ʷera 'urine', 'bladder'); therefore it is rather hard to reconstruct vocalism in the stem *nVḳʷV-.
Comment: The Ud. form regularly goes back to *meq̇Iel < *nVq̇Iʷel. The Arch. and Ud. forms stand quite apart from other Lezghian languages, which reflect a simple root *q̇Iʷel (q.v.). We may think, that this specific Arch.-Ud. isogloss is a reflection of an old compound *nVq̇IʷV-q̇Iʷel, not preserved in other languages (otherwise we would have to deal with a fact of a quite irregular loss of the first syllable in all Lezghian languages except Arch. and Ud.).
Comment: The stem originally referred only to the 1st/2d classes (the 3d and 4th had a separate reflexive pronoun), and this situation persists in Tsakh., although other languages have modified it in different ways.
The obl. base of this pronoun must be reconstructed as *žʷi- (1st cl.), *že- (2d cl.), cf. the Lezg. and Tab. forms (going back to the original oblique base) and Rut. ǯu- (1), ǯi- (2), Tsakh. ǯu- (1), ǯe- (2), Arch. žu- (1), že- (2).
