Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1977b; Mikailov 1967; Dirr 1908] suggests that the adjective mˈarči is the most common expression for 'all (omnis)', which can be used as both attributive and non-attributive, referring to human beings. Examples are numerous, e.g., "All youths like this girl" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 11, 66, 67, 90], "All men have come", "you do say to all the people that..." [Mikailov 1967: 95, 156, 158]. Examples for non-attributive mˈarči 'all (omnis)' referring to human beings are also well attested, e.g., "I have killed them all" [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 173], "Everybody was happy, when she died" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 9, 10, 11, 21, 27, 46, 104, etc.].

    A reasonable solution should be to treat expressions for 'omnis (human beings)' and 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' as synonyms, but the latter basic term cannot be established from available sources.

    A possible candidate for 'omnis (non-human or inanimate)' could be the adverb/adjective kʼilliy-class-u [Mikailov 1967: 95, 186; Dirr 1908: 48] with polysemy: 'totus / omnis'. The following examples for 'omnis' are found: "All the bull calves went home" [Mikailov 1967: 95], "All the horses" [Dirr 1908: 48], and also referring to humans: "All the women" [Dirr 1908: 48]. In more modern sources, however, this word is quoted as kʼellˈey-class-u with the exclusive meaning 'entirely, wholly', i.e. 'totus' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 264].

    More rare seems to be the adjective bˈatː-ˈešːu-tːu-class 'totus / omnis' [Chumakina et al. 2007] (examples: "I have filled a whole notebook with my writing", "All the sheep have come back"), [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 200] from the adverb bˈatː-ˈešːu 'completely' ← the verb bˈatː-ˈešːa- 'to come true, be fulfilled (of wish); to pass, come (of time)'.

    Cf. also various words for 'all (totus)':

    The adverb ˈiːkʼen [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 251, 354; Mikailov 1967: 95, 182], which normally expresses non-attributive 'all (totus)' referring to inanimate and abstract objects. E.g., "She demonstrated her hair and all (the rest, i.e. her body)", "Then this girl said everything" and so on [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 32, 37, 41, 93, 94, 97, etc.]. But there is one example for attributive ˈiːkʼen 'all (omnis)' referring to inanimate objects: "He (the physician) cured all fractures" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 116], and one example for attributive ˈiːkʼen 'all (totus)' referring to an inanimate object: "I have latched onto all of the property" [Mikailov 1967: 95].

    The adjectives gʷˈey-class-u and gʷˈey-class-u-hˈoːnu, which are explicitly glossed as 'all (totus), whole' in [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 234, 352] and [Chumakina et al. 2007] (hˈoːnu means 'some, any' [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 240]) with examples like "He has left all his property to the son", "The whole girl has been covered with gold", "I was washing the dishes yesterday, but could not wash the whole lot" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 41, 234; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 148]. In [Mikailov 1967: 95, 176] this adjective is quoted as gʷiy-class-u with additional examples for the meaning 'all (totus)'.

    More marginal seems to be the adjective hˈannu-class-hˈoːnu 'all (totus), whole' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 236, 354], consisting of hˈannu 'which one' + hˈoːnu means 'some, any'.

    The last term is the adjective ˈobšːi 'all (totus/omnis)', glossed as 'all, whole, every' in [Chumakina et al. 2007] and supplemented by two examples: "All the people [sg.] went in different directions", "Everybody went to the fields". This word has not been found in other sources.

    Distinct from the paronymous siyä-nä ~ siye-nä 'all (totus)' [Ibragimov 1978: 76].

    Distinct from the paronymous säye-nä {саьенаь} 'all (totus)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 224, 327] with the examples: "I have got it all" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 229b], "Everything depends upon you" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 23a], "He has sold everything" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 23b].

    An additional term is bütün {буьтуьн} 'all (totus/omnis)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 43], borrowed from Azerbaijani bütün 'all (totus/omnis)'.

    In other subdialects: Arsug ǯilːa, Khudig ǯalːa 'totus / omnis' [Shaumyan 1941: 74, 170].

    Distinct from inherited kʼil-di 'all (totus)' [Dirr 1907: 28, 130, 169], an adverb derived from kʼil 'head' q.v.

    The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: warˈi {вари} 'all (omnis / totus)' [Genko 2005: 32].

    The same in Literary Tabasaran: wˈari {вари} 'all (omnis / totus)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 93; Zhirkov 1948: 105]. There also exists the rare literary word marcːi-yi {марццийи} ‘all’ [Khanmagomedov 1957: 43] (not found in other sources; the exact meaning is unknown) - literally ‘cleanly’, derived from the adjective marcːˈi ‘clean’ [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 224] with the common adverbial suffix -yi (for which see [Magometov 1965: 327]).

    The same in Literary Lezgi: wirˈi {вири} 'all (omnis/totus)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 78; Gadzhiev 1950: 80; Alekseev & Sheykhov 1997: 46; Haspelmath 1993: 200, 511, 515] with the close, but less frequent synonym mixˈiz {михьиз} 'all (omnis/totus)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 241; Gadzhiev 1950: 80].

    The word wari ~ wiri was ultimately borrowed from Turkic; see notes on Kryts (proper). The second term mixˈi-z literally means 'cleanly', derived from the inherited adjective mixˈi 'clean' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 240] with the common adverbial suffix -z (for which see [Gaydarov et al. 2009: 220 f., 222 f.]).

    Distribution: In the majority of languages, the meaning 'all' (omnis or with polysemy omnis / totus) is represented by Turkic or Iranian loanwords. Inherited forms are:

    1) Tsakhur gɨrgɨ-n, derived from the old root for 'round' q.v.

    2) Rutul si-ʔin, si-ne-bɨr, apparently derived from the old root for 'one' q.v.

    3) Lezgi mixˈi-z, literally 'cleanly' from the adjective 'clean'.

    4) Tabasaran marcːi-yi, literally 'cleanly' from the adjective 'clean'.

    5) Caucasian Albanian ceχ and Archi mˈarči, both are etymologically unclear.

    Tabasaran marcːi-yi and Archi mˈarči are indeed phonetically similar, but the affricate correspondence is irregular.

    Replacements: {'round' > 'all'} (Tsakhur), {'one' > 'all'} (Rutul), {'clean' > 'all'} (Tabasaran, Lezgi).

    Distinct from kurtˈul 'tobacco ashes, tobacco sediment in a pipe' [Chumakina et al. 2007].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: yɨqːˤ- [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207].

    Distinct from the more specific term cʼüq 'fine ashes (Russian: пепел)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 288].

    Distinct from the more specific term cʼuqˤ 'fine ashes (Russian: пепел)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: ruqːˤ 'ashes' [Uslar 1979: 900, 994; Dirr 1905: 203, 229]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Genko 2005: 135].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Genko 2005: 135]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ruqːˤ {рюкъ} 'ashes' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 263].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: rüq [abs.] / rüqʷ-ˈedi- [obl.] {руьхъ} 'ashes' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 282; Gadzhiev 1950: 248; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 515] (the levelled paradigm).

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut rüq [abs.] / rüqː-ädi- [obl.] 'ashes' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 207].

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the unique (?) development *r- > ž- in Nidzh Udi.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *riqʼːʷˤV-.

    The only term for 'bark' in [Dirr 1908] is, however, qal 'peel; bark; shell' [Dirr 1908: 162, 211]. It is very probable that this reflects an archaic usage, before qal 'skin / bark' was superseded by pˈaqʼut in the meaning 'bark' and its semantic usage was narrowed to 'skin' q.v. It must be noted that qal is also quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 412] as the only translation for 'bark', but this may be an error.

    Distinct from the inherited specific term lukʼun {лукIун} 'birch bark' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 233].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: qʼabɨχ, polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. Distinct from the inherited specific term lukʼon 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    Distinct from the inherited specific term lukʼon 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    Distinct from the inherited specific term lukʼon 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    It should be noted that Dirr quotes two different terms for 'bark': Mukhad qːabɨχ [Dirr 1912: 152, 192] (borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark') and Mukhad & Shinaz čʼɨχɨn [Dirr 1912: 181, 182, 192]. The latter can in fact mean simply 'birch bark', cf. the Luchek data below.

    Another term for 'bark' is qːäbuχ {къаьбух} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 349], borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark'.

    A second synonym for 'bark' is qːabɨχ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97], borrowed from Azerbaijani gabɨg 'bark'.

    Distinct from the more specific term čʼɨχɨn 'birch bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97].

    In the Khudig subdialect 'bark' sounds as ʁark [Magometov 1970: 41].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: ɣal with polysemy: 'bark / peel / skin (i.e. hide?)' [Uslar 1979: 653, 996; Dirr 1905: 162, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ɣal {ггал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Genko 2005: 39].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: ɣal {ггал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Genko 2005: 39] (the plus sign is apparently omitted by accident, although the white space between the bracket and the siglum "Х." is present). The same in Literary Tabasaran: ɣal {гал} with polysemy: 'bark / rolled out dough' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 96].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: čkːal {чкал} with polysemy: 'bark / peel' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 373; Gadzhiev 1950: 308].

    Somewhat differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kan 'bark' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 97]. According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], the second Khlyut word for 'bark' is čkːal. The difference between the two terms is unknown, but Khlyut kan is clearly secondary, because its literary counterpart kan means 'dandruff; epidermis' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 149] and the external comparison proves that the semantics of 'skin' is primary [NCED: 699].

    The last of these, *qːärkʷa, is formally a Proto-Aghul innovation (Lezgian comparison suggests the development 'a k. of hide' > 'bark' [NCED: 455 f.]).

    Two stems with the best distribution - ƛːal and *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la - are formally equivalent candidates, and any historical scenario would imply certain zig-zag or parallel semantic shifts.

    External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the original meaning of *čːukːa-la /*kːučːa-la was 'noodles' or 'a k. of food rising to the surface after boiling' [NCED: 439]. This semantics is retained in Budukh ('noodles'), but underwent such shifts as 'noodles' > 'sour cream' in Tsakhur, 'noodles' > 'bast, bass' in Kryts and 'noodles' > 'bark, peel' in Rutul, Lezgi, Keren Aghul. The latter shift is not a genetical feature of Rutul, Lezgi and Keren Aghul, but is either an independent development or, rather, an areal isogloss between adjacent territories (see [Koryakov 2006: map 13]).

    As for *ƛːal, external North Caucasian comparison points to the original meaning 'color' with the shift 'color' > 'surface' [NCED: 789]; however, it is not particularly risky to assume the shift 'color' > 'bark, peel' for Proto-Lezgian. The meaning 'bark, peel' is retained in Udi and Tabasaran, and emerges as a secondary development in Koshan Aghul (in Proto-Aghul this root apparently meant 'shell').

    The fourth inherited term for 'bark', *parqʼːulː, which is attested in the basic meaning in modern Archi, can be a recent introduction, if Dirr's data are correct. If so, this Proto-Lezgian stem demonstrates the shift 'burdock, plantain' > 'bark' in Archi [NCED: 865]. It is important that Lezgian *parqʼːulː finds Avar cognates with the meaning 'bark' [NCED: 865], but it is not clear whether *mVqʼːVr- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Avar-Andic term for 'bark' (perhaps we are dealing with independent developments in Archi and Avar). Note that in the Lezgian languages, *parqʼːulː demonstrates various consonants irregularities of dissimilative/assimilative nature [NCED: 865], particularly the Archi form is pˈaqʼut with lax qʼ (not **pˈaqʼːut pace [NCED]).

    Replacements: {'a k. of hide' > 'bark'} (Aghul), {'shell' > 'bark'} (Koshan Aghul), {'noodles' > 'bark'} (Rutul, Lezgi, Keren Aghul), {'burdock, plantain' > 'bark'} (Archi), {'color' > 'bark, peel'} (Proto-Lezgian).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root, probably with Proto-Lezgian polysemy 'bark / peel'. The oblique stem is *ƛːole- or *ƛːola-.

    Schulze [Schulze 2001: 262] suspects a borrowing from Arabic butʼuːn (the plural form of Arabic batʼn- 'belly, stomach, womb'); the hypothesis is unconvincing both phonetically and morphologically.

    According to [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271, 336, 359] there are two closely synonymous terms for 'belly, stomach': lˈagi and χˤurχˈu. Browsing through texts in [Kibrik et al. 1977b], however, suggests that lˈagi is applied to humans, whereas χˤurχˈu normally denotes stomach of an animal. Cf. the following examples for lˈagi: "I have a stomach ache" (lit. "my stomach aches") [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 27, 28, 271, 32, 33, 38, 39], "She is pregnant" (lit. "a child in her belly"), "stepbrother" (lit. "brother with a different belly") [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271].

    Examples for χˤurχˈu are: "Give me the ram's stomach" etc. [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 25, 26, 28], "I have given him (i.e., to the child of the king of beasts) the name Full Belly" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 336], "A dried cow stomach" [Kibrik et al. 1977b: 336].

    Two terms, lˈagi and χˤurχˈu, are discriminated in [Dirr 1908]: lˈagi is translated as 'paunch, belly (Russian: брюхо, живот)' [Dirr 1908: 164, 207], χˤurχˈu - as 'stomach (Russian: желудок)' [Dirr 1908: 190, 207].

    Conversely, in [Mikailov 1967] two terms are opposed as lˈagi 'abdominal cavity (Russian: брюшная полость)' [Mikailov 1967: 190] vs. χˤurχˈu 'stomach, belly (Russian: желудок, живот)' [Mikailov 1967: 201a] (the Archi word is omitted due to typographic error).

    We fill the slot with the etymologically obscure word lˈagi. This resembles Lak laqʼˤi 'belly, stomach', which is likewise unetymologizable, but the Archi term can hardly be a Lak loanword due to phonetic difference (for Lak loanwords in Archi see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 53 f.]). It is proposed in [NCED: 755] that Archi lˈagi was borrowed from Avar lagˈa 'body part, organ; body-build, frame, figure; stature', but this solution seems dubious due to semantic difference (cf. the late transparent Avar loanword in Archi lagˈa ‘body part’ [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271]).

    Distinct from kummˈullin noƛʼ 'stomach, gaster (Russian желудок)', literally 'food's house' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36] - a loan translation from Avar (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222] this is incorrectly quoted as the only Archi term for 'stomach').

    Distinct from the more marginal term fɨn {фын}, glossed as 'belly' in [Meylanova 1984: 143, 212] with the only example being: "to have a stomach ache".

    Distinct from qːursaʁ 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36], borrowed from Azerbaijani gursag 'abomasum; stomach, belly'.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: wuxun, polysemy: 'belly / stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].

    According to [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 222], the meaning 'stomach' can also be expressed with the loanword maʔda {маъда} (< Azerbaijani mädä 'stomach' or rather directly from Arabic maʕd-at- 'stomach').

    Distinct from armaz 'belly, paunch', quoted in [Ibragimov 1978: 169, 222] without additional specifications.

    A second (apparently less frequent) term is the inherited ufun 'belly; stomach' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 257].

    A third candidate is laqʼˤa 'paunch, belly' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 178], borrowed from Lak laqʼˤi 'belly, stomach'.

    Distinct from inherited uxun 'stomach (Russian: желудок)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].

    Distinct from šaxː 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36]. It must be noted that in [Suleymanov 2003: 115], 'stomach' is quoted as Koshan ʁʷag and šahar, but without exact specification of the subdialect.

    Distinct from qːar-fun 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36] (a compound of qːark 'shell' + 'belly'?).

    Distinct from šix 'stomach (of human)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36], qːar-fun 'stomach (of animal)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36] (a compound of qːark 'shell' + 'belly'?).

    Distinct from qːar-fun 'stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].

    The same in other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Khpyuk fun 'belly' [Shaumyan 1941: 149; Magometov 1970: 223-224 sentences 4, 8, 9].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Uslar 1979: 942, 989; Dirr 1905: 213]; cf. also the expression lekrin fun 'calf of the leg', literally 'belly of the leg' [Dirr 1905: 213]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Genko 2005: 161].

    Distinct from Khanag maʔad-an 'stomach' [Dirr 1905: 195, 228] (ultimately borrowed from Arabic maʕd-at- 'stomach').

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: fun 'belly; offal' [Genko 2005: 161]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: fun 'belly; stomach' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 310].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: rufˈun {руфун} 'belly' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 281; Gadzhiev 1950: 200; Haspelmath 1993: 505, 516]. Distinct from literary χuk [abs.] / χʷkːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.] {хук} with polysemy: 'stomach / gourmandizer' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 349; Haspelmath 1993: 512, 527].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut rɨfˈɨn with polysemy: 'belly / stomach' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 36].

    Another candidate is Nidzh Udi tapan ~ Budukh tǝpǝn 'belly', but these isolated forms seem very suspicious and rather look like a wandering loanword (although the source of borrowing is unknown). Vartashen Udi bukun and Archi lˈagi 'belly' are likewise isolated; they could only formally pretend to the status of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'belly'. It should be noted that the authors of [NCED] follow Gukasyan's typo that transcribes the Vartashen Udi form as buqːun - actually, the proposed Udi-Archi comparison [NCED: 297] should be rejected.

    In some lects *uo=ɬʷɨn ~ *ro=ɬʷɨn was superseded with loanwords (Luchek Rutul < Azerbaijani; Ixrek Rutul < ?).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root, modified by means of class prefixes.

    Apparently more marginal is the adjective mˈirχbi-tːu-class 'big, large; worthy' [Chumakina et al. 2007] (not found in other sources).

    Distinct from baham {багьам} 'quite big, big enough' [Meylanova 1984: 23, 205] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583] incorrectly quoted for generic 'big').

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: χˤa-class-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].

    A second candidate is äyk-äd 'big' [Ibragimov 1978: 39, 125] with the more modern variant ekː-ed [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583; Makhmudova 2001: 95], borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.

    According to [Makhmudova 2001: 95], in the modern language the inherited form qʼux-dɨ 'big' is applied to animated objects, whereas the borrowed ekːe-d - to inanimate ones (apparently Makhmudova means human beings vs. animals/inanimate objects); cf. an example for qʼux-dɨ ~ qʼux-du: "big father" [Ibragimov 1978: 69]. We prefer to follow Dirr's norm.

    A second candidate is eke-dɨ 'large' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 309], cf. such examples as: "large (court)yard" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 80a], "large family" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 272a], "You became big (= grew up) rapidly", "to do a big job", "to hold a high post" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 309b]. Borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.

    A third candidate is qʼɨx-dɨ {кьыхьды} 'big' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 167, 323; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 583] (in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010] erroneously quoted as kʼɨx-dɨ {кIыхьды}), but examples point rather to a more abstract sense, cf. "capital letters" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 79a], "He is a great dandy" [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 90b].

    A different Burshag term for 'big' is quoted by Shaumyan: aHa-r 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176], and the same word in the Arsug subdialect: aHa-d 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176]. According to [Suleymanov 2003: 85], however, Koshan aHa-d {ахIад} has the more specific meaning 'big, huge, enormous'. On the contrary, the Arsug or Khudig word for 'big' is quoted as ʁaba-ni-d in [Suleymanov 2003: 18, 190].

    It should be noted, however, that, according to [Magometov 1970: 86], the Richa term for 'big' is Ha- (ħa?). The same in the Usug subdialect: aχˤe-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176].

    A second term is qːaba-n- (> qːaba-m-f), which is quoted in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237] as a neutral term for 'big', but in [Dirr 1907: 128] is glossed as 'big, huge'. In the discovered examples qːaba-n- is applied to an evil monster [Dirr 1907: 83] or to a human penis, which cannot fit the fox burrow [Dirr 1907: 76].

    A third term for 'big' is azmam-f [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237], borrowed from Azerbaijani azman 'huge, enormous', dialectal 'large' (ultimately from Arabic ʕazˤiːm 'big').

    The same adjective in other subdialects: Kurag aHa-f 'big' [Magometov 1970: 170], Tsirkhe äχä-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176], Duldug aHa-f 'big' [Shaumyan 1941: 176].

    Distinct from Tpig azman-f, glossed as 'big, large' in [Suleymanov 2003: 18] (an Azerbaijani loanword, see notes on Gequn Aghul).

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: aχˤˈi with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Uslar 1979: 600, 989; Dirr 1905: 154, 224]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: aχˤˈi {аьхи} 'big' [Genko 2005: 24].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: aχˤˈu {аьхю} with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Genko 2005: 24]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: aχˤˈu {аьхю} 'big; elder' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 71].

    Literary Lezgi: čʼeχˈi {чIехи} with polysemy: 'big / elder' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 378; Gadzhiev 1950: 59; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 516]. A close synonym is literary yekˈe {еке} 'big, large' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 117; Gadzhiev 1950: 59; Haspelmath 1993: 493], but this term is less frequent. Lezgi yeke was borrowed from Azerbaijani yekä ~ äkä 'big, large'.

    Only the Azerbaijani loanword in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut yekˈe 'big' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 237].

    Cf. the inherited term for 'big' in the Yarki dialect (Kyuri group): Nyutyug čʼeqi [Meylanova 1964: 96]. In the Yargun dialect (Quba group), čʼeχi means 'great; elder', whereas the generic word for 'big' is the borrowing yike ~ yeke [Babaliyeva 2007: 38, 48, 105, 106].

    The historical phonetics of Lezgi dialects requires additional investigation, but the fluctuation q ~ χ (Gyune/Yarki čʼiqˈi/čʼeqi ~ literary/Yargun čʼeχˈi) seems irregular. Proceeding from general premises, one can suppose that the affricate q is primary here rather than the lenited χ, although external comparison speaks in favour of χ.

    The second candidate is *ʔaχˤɨ- [NCED: 511], attested as generic 'big' in Tsakhur, Tabasaran, non-Koshan Aghul. However, actually, *ʔaχˤɨ- might have been the Proto-Lezgian root for 'many' q.v. The assumed shift 'many' > 'big' cannot be an inherited feature of Tsakhur, Tabasaran and non-Koshan Aghul, but rather represents parallel independent innovations in Tsakhur and Tabasaran-Aghul (the Tabasaran-Aghul isogloss is apparently of an areal origin; the Proto-Aghul meaning of this root was probably something like 'huge').

    The third candidate is *čʼaχV (~ -ä-) [NCED: 386], which means 'big (in general)' in Lezgi and 'massive' in Tabasaran. Despite some interesting external North Caucasian comparanda, this can hardly be considered a good candidate for Proto-Lezgian 'big'.

    Various etymologically isolated roots for 'big' are found in Archi and the Rutul dialects; these do not look like loans, but lack Lezgian and North Caucasian cognates.

    Inherited forms were superseded with loanwords in some lects (modern Udi < Iranian, Akhty Lezgi < Azerbaijani).

    Replacements: {'many' > 'big'} (Tsakhur, Tabasaran), {'huge' > 'big'} (non-Koshan Aghul), {'massive' > 'big'} (Lezgi), {'big' > 'good'} (Archi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, but two metathetical variants have to be reconstructed.

    Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be big'.

    In [Mikailov 1967: 194] nocʼ is glossed as 'small bird (in general); sparrow', although translated as 'bird (in general)' in the texts: "A bird is sitting on the branch" [Mikailov 1967: 60], "He, like a bird, has thrown himself upon the sea steed" [Mikailov 1967: 160, 162]. Similarly in [Dirr 1908: 170, 219] nocʼ is glossed as "sparrow; small bird (in general)". It must be noted that in [Dirr 1908: 165, 219] lˈilǝχːˤu is quoted as 'bird (in general)', although the actual meaning of lˈilǝχːˤu is 'a mythological bird' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 274; Mikailov 1967: 190] (borrowed from Lak liluχːˤi 'bird (in general)').

    It is probable that in Proto-Archi the term nocʼ denoted a 'small/middle bird (in general)' as opposed to specific names of large predatory birds (a typologically possible lexicological situation).

    Note that the Archi word is unjustifiedly labeled as "probably borrowed" in [Chumakina 2009].

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] the word čaʁ {чIагъ} is also quoted as a synonym for 'bird (in general)', apparently < Lezgian *čːaqʼʷ(a) 'bird, small bird', although the expected Kryts form should rather be **čaqʼ {чIакъ} (Comrie & Khalilov's error?).

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141], 'bird' is glossed as ǯiv-ǯiv {джив-джив} - apparently a corrupted spelling of the onomatopoeic term ǯib-ǯib 'chicken' [Meylanova 1984: 57].

    Cf. examples in [Kibrik et al. 1999]: "If only a human had wings, he would fly like a bird" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 263]; "The bird ate the grain, but it was eaten itself by the hawk" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 677]; "The birds have flown away" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 218]; "Ali saw a rock, a bird was flying over it" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 391], "The bird is sitting on the tree" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 469]; "Ali fired at the bird that was flying over him" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 649]; "When the bird caught the snake, it ate it up" [Kibrik et al. 1999: 678]. Two first instances demonstrate that šitʼʸ generally denotes 'small/mid-size bird (in general)', but can be extended to the generic meaning 'bird'.

    In [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 221], only qːuš {къуш} 'bird' (borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird') is quoted as a separate entry. Examples include: "There are a lot of birds in our woods" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 221], "A bird flies with the help of its wings" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 213], "The falcon is a predatory bird" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 217]. However, the word šitʼ / šitʼʸ- {шитI, шитIяр} is attested in examples like "He was snaring birds" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 51], "Morwennol is a pretty bird" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 199], "(Scarecrows) frightened birds on the grain field" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 354], "Babble of birds" [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 403].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: šitʼ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86].

    Distinct from the inherited specific term šitʼʸi 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86] (in [Dirr 1913: 217, 236] quoted as šitʼ).

    Distinct from the inherited šuruk 'sparrow; small bird (in general)' [Dirr 1912: 183], 'sparrow' [Ibragimov 1978: 116], although in [Ibragimov 1978: 282; Makhmudova 2001: 12, 20, 86, 159] and [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] Mukhad šuruk is glossed as the generic 'bird'.

    A second word for 'bird' is qːuš {къуш} [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 160], but it is probably less frequent - no examples found; borrowed from Azerbaijani guš 'bird'.

    Distinct from the inherited šuruk 'sparrow' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 305] (which is quoted in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 141] as a generic term for 'bird').

    Distinct from the inherited širuk 'young (of animal), nestling; small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86, 219].

    Distinct from Richa žaqʼʷ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86], although Magometov translates it simply as 'bird' in examples [Magometov 1970: 136].

    Distinct from inherited ǯaqʼʷ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Dirr 1907: 114, 181].

    In other subdialects: Tsirkhe naχšir, Duldug naχčir 'bird' [Shaumyan 1941: 156].

    In other subdialects the loanword šeyʔ is used for 'bird': Khanag šeyʔ 'a thing; bird' [Uslar 1979: 981, 1003; Dirr 1905: 220, 240]; according to [Dirr 1905: 218], there is also a more detailed expression for 'bird' in Khanag: čʼeyi šeyʔ, literally 'living/alive šeyʔ'), Khyuryuk šeyʔ {шейъ} 'a thing, creature, œuvre; bird' [Genko 2005: 189]. Another loanword in the Kumi subdialect: naχšˈir {нахшир} 'bird' [Genko 2005: 126].

    Distinct from inherited Dyubek ǯˈaqʼ-a 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86], Khanag, Khyuryuk, Kumi ǯaqʼ {жжакь} 'small bird (in general)' [Dirr 1905: 169, 240; Genko 2005: 65].

    In other subdialects only loanwords are attested: Khiv ničχˈir {ничхир}, Tinit naχšˈir {нахшир} 'bird' [Genko 2005: 126, 127]; a second Khiv term is šeyʔ {шейъ} with polysemy: 'a thing, creature, œuvre / bird' [Genko 2005: 189].

    Distinct from inherited Kondik, Khiv ǯaqʼʷ {жжакьв} 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86; Genko 2005: 65].

    A different situation in Literary Tabasaran: inherited ǯaqʼʷ {жакьв} 'bird (in general); sparrow' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 157], which is opposed to borrowed ničχˈir {ничхир} 'wild bird; wild beast' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244]. Cf. šeyʔ {шейъ} 'thing, object' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].

    The same Azerbaijani loanword in Literary Lezgi: qːuš {къуш} 'bird' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 195; Gadzhiev 1950: 671; Haspelmath 1993: 502, 516]. The second literary expression for 'bird (in general)' is luwan ničχir {луван ничхир} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 254; Gadzhiev 1950: 671], literally 'ničχir with wing', whose original meaning was the narrower 'game bird', see Uslar's data above. Modern literary ničχˈir {ничхир} means 'game bird, wild bird' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 254; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 516], originating from the wider meaning 'game', see Uslar's data above.

    Distinct from literary inherited nükʼ {нуькI} 'small bird (in general), sparrow' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 255; Haspelmath 1993: 500, 516].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːuš 'bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86]; distinct from the inherited Khlyut word nucʼ 'small bird (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 86].

    Out of several inherited roots for 'small/middle bird', *nɨcʼʷ(a) possesses the best distribution: Archi 'small/middle bird (in general)', Lezgi 'small bird (in general)', also Khnyukh (subdialect of Mukhad Rutul) nicʼ 'a k. of bird' [Ibragimov 1978: 135]. This root also has a good North Caucasian etymology ('small bird' or 'bird').

    Cf. other roots, attested with the meaning 'small bird' in Lezgian: *čːaqʼʷ(a) (Aghul, Tabasaran), for which external North Caucasian comparison suggests the shift 'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird' [NCED: 1105]; *š(ʷ)Vrtʼ / *čʼVˤrtʼ (Tsakhur), apparently with the shift 'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird' [NCED: 343]; *čɨraƛʼːʷ (Rutul), for which the Lezgian comparandum suggests the shift 'nestling, young of birds' > 'small bird' [LEDb: #161]; *čVpːV(?) (Udi), an isolated form [LEDb: #267].

    The majority of Lezgian languages have recently borrowed their generic terms for 'bird' from Azerbaijani or Persian.

    Replacements: {'a k. of small bird' > 'small bird'} (Aghul, Tabasaran, Tsakhur), {'nestling, young of birds' > 'small bird'} (Rutul).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *nVсʼʷa-.

    Distinct from the complex verb hˈaˤnčʼ-bo- 'to bite off; to nibble grass, depasture', formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 238].

    According to [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988], one other synonym is the verb yitʼ- 'to bite', paradigm: r=itʼ-a-r- [imperf. 4] / y=itʼ-ɨ-r [perf. 4] / y=itʼ [imv. 4] (initial r= is the imperfective exponent; y= is a prefix with general semantics or the fossilized class 1/4 exponent). In the Borch-Khnov dialect, the corresponding verb w=itʼ- means 'to bite', applied to a snake [Ibragimov 1978: 276, 300]. This root is isolated within Lezgian, cf. [NCED: 227].

    Similarly in the Khanag subdialect: qʼacʼ ax- [Dirr 1905: 201] ~ qʼacʼ apʼ- [Uslar 1979: 882], literally qʼacʼ 'a bite; a piece' + ax- 'to put' or apʼ- 'to do'.

    The same in Literary Tabasaran: qʼacʼ apʼ- {кьацI апIуб} 'to bite' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 209], literally qʼacʼ 'a bite; a piece' + apʼ- 'to do'.

    A similar construction in the Khiv subdialect, but with a different noun: ʁancʼ apʼ- {гъанцI апIуб} 'to bite' [Genko 2005: 41], literally ʁancʼ 'a bite (e.g., of snake)' + the auxiliary verb ap- 'to do'. Distinct from Khiv class=is- {бисуб} 'to seize; hold; to bite (said of dog)' [Genko 2005: 29].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: kʼˈas- {кIасун} 'to bite' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 212; Gadzhiev 1950: 326; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 516; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 455]. Distinct from literary qʼa- {кьун} 'to hold; to seize; to bite (said of dog)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 207].

    After that, several verbal roots enter into competition: (1) Udi kašˤ-, isolated root; (2) *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi); (3) *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian [Kryts, Budukh] and Lezgi); (4) the Tsakhur verb, whose morphological analysis is not entirely clear. From the distributional point of view, all of them are equivalent candidates. We choose *ʔeqʼːɨ- (Archi, lost in the rest of Lezgian languages), since it actually stems from a good candidate for the status of the Proto-North Caucasian verb for 'to bite' [NCED: 559].

    If so, the Udi polysemy kašˤ- 'to bite / to dig' suggests an earlier shift 'to dig' > 'to bite', or else both synchronic meanings originate from *'to break' (i.e. 'to break' > 'to dig'). Pace [LEDb: #11], the Udi root has plain k-, not tense kː-, therefore, comparison with Proto-Lezgian *kʼosʷɨ- should be rejected.

    The root *kʼosʷɨ- (South Lezgian, Lezgi) is an inner Samur introduction for 'to bite', although its semantic origin is unknown, since it lacks any cognates outside South Lezgian and Lezgi. Formally *kʼosʷɨ- can be reconstructed as the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian verb for 'to bite'. Cf. also the etymologically obscure Kryts form kʼɨp- 'to bite', which serves as the perfective stem in the suppletive paradigm.

    Replacements: {'to dig' > 'to bite' (?)} (Udi), {'to do a tooth' > 'to bite'} (Rutul), {'to put a piece in' > 'to bite'} (Aghul), {'to put a bite' > 'to bite'} (Northern Tabasaran), {'to do a bite' > 'to bite'} (Southern Tabasaran).

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: kʼarɨ-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: kʼerˈi 'black' [Uslar 1979: 799, 1010; Dirr 1905: 190, 246]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: kʼerˈi {кIери} 'black' [Genko 2005: 112].

    The same in other subdialects: Khiv kʼarˈu {кIару}, Tinit kʼarˈi {кIари} 'black' [Genko 2005: 111]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: kʼarˈu {кIару} 'black' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 213].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: čʼulˈaw {чIулав} 'black' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 379; Gadzhiev 1950: 929; Haspelmath 1993: 485, 516].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut čʼlaw 'black' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 234].

    The second candidate is *kʼarɨ-, attested with the meaning 'black' in Tsakhur, Aghul and Tabasaran. This was lost as a separate word in the rest of Lezgian languages, but survived in the compound *kʼarV-šːim 'charcoal', literally 'X pebbles' in Aghul, Rutul, Kryts, Budukh [NCED: 719]. External North Caucasian comparison could point, however, to the original meaning 'charcoal' for this root (cf. Proto-Nakh 'charcoal'), thus the Lezgian compound *kʼarV-šːim might actually mean 'charcoal pebbles' rather than the more trivial 'black pebbles'. If so, one must assume the shift 'charcoal' > 'black' that occurred independently in Tsakhur and Aghul-Tabasaran.

    Two residual roots, attested with the generic meaning, should be excluded due to their distribution. The root *mičʼ[ä]- means 'black' in Udi, but 'dark' in other Lezgian languages including Archi, thus the Proto-Lezgian semantic reconstruction 'dark' is very probable; external North Caucasian comparison, however, is not unambiguous, because the Khinalug cognate of this Lezgian root means 'black' (further to Nakh 'yellow, orange', Avar 'dark grey, yellow', Lak 'blind') [NCED: 819].

    The fourth root is *čʼulV (~ -o-) which denotes 'black' in Lezgi. This got lost in other Lezgian languages except for Aghul, where it survived in the expression for 'raspberry', literally 'dark/black berry' [NCED: 556]. Actually Lezgian *čʼulV possesses good North Caucasian (strictly speaking East Caucasian) comparanda with the meaning 'black' (Proto-Nakh, Proto-Avar-Andic), but it is hard to suppose that *čʼulV survived with its original meaning 'black' only in Lezgi; we should assume the meaning 'a k. of dark color' for Proto-Lezgian *čʼulV and the late development 'a k. of dark color' > 'black' in modern Lezgi.

    Replacements: {'dark' > 'black'} (Udi), {'a k. of dark color' > 'black'} (Lezgi), {'charcoal' > 'black'} (Tsakhur, Aghul, Tabasaran).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, right up to the class prefix fusion in Archi.

    Semantics and structure: Primary stative verbal root 'to be black'.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: eb [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 48].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: i-fːˈi ~ ye-fːi 'blood' [Uslar 1979: 738, 996; Dirr 1905: 179, 232]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: i-fːˈi {иффи} 'blood' [Genko 2005: 77].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: i-fˈi {ифи} 'blood' [Genko 2005: 77]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: i-fˈi {ифи} [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 180].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: i-wˈi {иви} 'blood' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 132; Gadzhiev 1950: 319; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 516].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut e-wˈi 'blood' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 48].

    Following [NCED: 497, 1064], we treat Lezgi e-wi as a compound of two old roots.

    The plain root *pːiy is attested in the meaning 'blood' in Caucasian Albanian-Udi and Archi. In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), the compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy 'blood' is observed. Finally, in East Lezgian we see the compound *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy 'blood' (Tabasaran, Lezgi) and the plain *ʔäʔ 'blood' (Aghul). The root *ɬːʷiy is unattested outside this compound, but its external North Caucasian comparanda clearly point to the meaning 'vein' [NCED: 1064]. Formal distribution suggests that the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood' should have been *pːiy, retained in both of the outliers (Udi and Archi), whereas in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian this was superseded with *ʔäʔ, which was normally used as an element of compounds. The problem of this solution is that the status of *pːiy in the Proto-West Lezgian compound *ʔäʔ-*pːiy appears to be unclear.

    Both discussed roots - *pːiy and *ʔäʔ - possess external East Caucasian cognates with the meaning 'blood' [NCED: 496, 879], but it is actually *ʔäʔ which reflects the main candidate for the status of at least the Proto-East Caucasian term for 'blood', whereas the original meaning of *pːiy seems to have been 'blood vessel'. If *ʔäʔ is to be posited as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'blood', we must assume that the root *pːiy independently shifted from 'blood vessel' > 'blood' in both of the outliers (Udi, Archi). On the other hand, both of the attested compounds for 'blood', *ʔäʔ-*pːiy (West Lezgian) and *ʔäʔ-*ɬːʷiy (East Lezgian), acquire the identical structure 'blood + vein'.

    In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), the substantive 'blood' is transparently derived from the adjective *ʔirɨ- (~ ʔˤ-) 'red' q.v. [NCED: 519].

    Replacements: {'red' > 'blood'} (Kryts, Budukh), {'blood vessel, vein' > 'blood'} (Udi, Archi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is not reconstructible.

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 181], the word čanaq {чанахъ} is incorrectly quoted as a second term for 'bone', although in reality čanaq means 'hip bone' [Meylanova 1984: 151].

    Distinct from cʼom {цIом} 'bone marrow' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 386].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: barkʼʷ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39]. Distinct from the more specific term cʼom 'tubular bone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].

    Distinct from the more specific term cʼom 'tubular bone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].

    Distinct from the more specific term cʼom 'tubular bone (in general)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: yirkː 'bone' [Uslar 1979: 753, 996; Dirr 1905: 180, 231]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: yirkː {йиркк} 'bone' [Genko 2005: 80].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: kʼurˈab {кIураб} 'bone' [Genko 2005: 113]. In Literary Tabasaran both terms are present: yirkː {йиркк} 'bone' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 185] and kʼurˈab {кIураб} 'bone' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 214].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: kʼarˈab {кIараб} 'bone' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 212; Gadzhiev 1950: 312; Haspelmath 1993: 496, 516].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kʼrab 'bone' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 39].

    Since the Samur territory generally demonstrates a high number of post-split, contact-induced lexical isoglosses between Nuclear Lezgian lects, the distribution seems to speak in favor of *yirƛʼː as the Proto-Lezgian term for 'bone'. External North Caucasian comparison clearly supports such a solution. On the contrary, *ƛʼorapː in the meaning 'bone' looks like an inner Nuclear Lezgian introduction, which further spread across the Samur territory as an areal isogloss (cf. especially the opposition *yirƛʼː / *ƛʼorapː between two Tabasaran dialectal clusters). External North Caucasian comparison suggests that the Proto-Lezgian meaning of *ƛʼorapː was 'hand bone' [NCED: 779] (actually *ƛʼora-pː with the fossilized plural suffix, used for body parts).

    In Archi, *yirƛʼː 'bone' was superseded with *läk, whose original meaning was probably 'leg bone' [NCED: 755]: cf. the meaning 'knee' in Caucasian Albanian (see notes on 'knee') and 'foot, leg' in Tabasaran-Aghul (see notes on 'foot'). In Tsakhur, th meaning 'bone' is expressed by *pːalkʼʷ, originating from the meaning 'a k. of bone' [NCED: 310] (cf. its reflexes in other Lezgian languages: 'cheek-bone', 'spine', 'rib').

    Replacements: {'leg bone' > 'bone'} (Archi), {'hand bone' > 'bone'} (Kryts, Budukh, Rutul, Southern Tabasaran, Lezgi), {'a k. of bone' > bone'} (Tsakhur).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is not reconstructible.

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217] and [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22] the word döš is also quoted for 'breast, chest' (the only term in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990], as a synonym of šˤaqː in [Comrie & Khalilov 2010]); it is borrowed from Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest'.

    Distinct from cːicːikː {цIицIикI} 'female breast, nipple' [Gukasyan 1974: 234; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23; Mobili 2010: 253]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 217], 'female breast' is translated as äq {аьхъ}, which is both an incorrect translation (in fact, a Vartashen form aqˤ for 'human breast') and incorrect spelling for {аъхъ}.

    Distinct from cːicːikː 'female breast' [Fähnrich 1999: 12].

    Distinct from mam 'female breast, nipple, baby's dummy' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 277] (incorrectly glossed in [Chumakina et al. 2007] as 'breast, nipple').

    Distinct from yeχä 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23] (maybe < Azerbaijani yaxa 'collar, lapel, breast (metaphorical)').

    Distinct from mam 'female breast' [Authier 2009: 49].

    According to [Meylanova 1984: 55, 210], the word for 'breast (in general, both male and female)' is duš {душ} (polysemy: 'human breast, chest / slope (of mountain), plateau'). But in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23] duš is quoted only for 'female breast'. Borrowed from Azerbaijani döš 'breast, chest'.

    Distinct from mǝm {мам} 'nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23], 'nipple, female breast' [Meylanova 1984: 104].

    Distinct from the inherited muχu {муху} 'female breast' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 267].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: koksi [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23]. Distinct from the inherited muχu 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    Distinct from the inherited muχu 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23; Dirr 1913: 188, 223].

    Distinct from the inherited mɨχɨ 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    Distinct from tʼitʼ 'female breast' [Ibragimov 1978: 48].

    Distinct from tʼitʼ 'female breast, nipple' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 252, 334; Ibragimov 1978: 191].

    Distinct from tʼitʼ 'nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    Distinct from Burshag bizi 'female breast, nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    Distinct from Richa bizi 'female breast, nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    Distinct from bizi 'female breast, nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23; Dirr 1907: 107].

    Distinct from bizi 'female breast, nipple' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    The same in Tsirkhe and Duldug subdialects: muχur 'breast' [Shaumyan 1941: 152].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: muχˈur 'breast' [Uslar 1979: 864, 992; Dirr 1905: 197, 227], nanˈay with polysemy: 'female breast, nipple / udder / pupil of the eye' [Uslar 1979: 868, 992; Dirr 1905: 197, 227]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk, Kumi muχˈur {мухур} 'breast' [Genko 2005: 123], Khyuryuk nanˈay {нанай} with polysemy: 'female breast, nipple / pupil of the eye' [Genko 2005: 125].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: muχˈur {мухур} 'breast', nana {нана} 'female breast, nipple' [Genko 2005: 123, 125]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: muχˈur {мухур} 'breast', nanˈa {нана} 'female breast, nipple' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 235, 241] (distinct, however, from ninˈi {нини} 'pupil of the eye' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 244]).

    The same in Literary Lezgi: χur {хур} 'breast' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 349; Gadzhiev 1950: 154; Haspelmath 1993: 512, 516]. Distinct from literary mam 'female breast, teat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 230; Gadzhiev 1950: 154].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut χɨr 'breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 22]. Distinct from Khlyut mam 'female breast' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 23].

    In two Udi dialects, 'breast' is expressed by forms with synchronic polysemy: 'breast / mountain slope', apparently with the development 'mountain slope' > 'breast'. At least for the Vartashen Udi form *ʔawχː(a), both internal and external comparison suggest the original meaning 'slope' [NCED: 244] (the Nidzh Udi term is etymologically isolated). It should be noted, however, that theoretically both directions of the semantic shift between 'breast' and 'slope' are possible.

    Replacements: {'mountain slope' > 'breast'} (Udi), {'breast' > 'brisket'} (Archi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. Historically *moχo-r with the nominal r-suffix with general semantics.

    Distinct from the causative l=ikʼʷ-a aʔ- 'to set fire to' [Dirr 1912: 157; Ibragimov 1978: 120] from l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire' [Ibragimov 1978: 120; Makhmudova 2001: 159, 253].

    Distinct from l=ikʼʷ-ä haʔ- 'to set fire to' (with the example: "They lit a fire") [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180] from l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 180].

    Distinct from k=irš-e haʔ- [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144], which is translated by Dzhamalov & Semedov as 'to burn (trans.)', but the only example "He has lit a splinter" points to the meaning 'to set fire to smth.'. Causative from k=irš-, which is translated in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 144] as 'to burn (intrans.)' (examples: "The firewood burns", "The lamp is lit"), but such a glossing also seems an inaccuracy.

    In [Ibragimov 1978: 224], both Ixrek forms, h=ux- and k=irš-, are quoted as synonyms for 'to catch fire'; they are semantic counterparts of Mukhad l=ikʼʷ- 'to catch fire'.

    Distinct from k=eyx-i- 'to set fire to' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 96].

    Distinct from k=ix-a- 'to set fire to; to write' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 96, 181] (homonymy rather than polysemy).

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: wug-ˈ 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' [Uslar 1979: 625; Dirr 1905: 212].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: ug-ˈ {ургуб} 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' [Genko 2005: 154]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ug-ˈ {убгуб} 'to burn (intrans.); to burn (trans.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 290].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: kːu- [imperf.] / kːa- [perf.] / kːu-g [imv.] {кун, ккун} 'to burn (trans., intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 166; Gadzhiev 1950: 199; Gaydarov et al. 2009: 181; Haspelmath 1993: 495, 516; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 368].

    In West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul), this root was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔeɬ(ː)ʷVr-, whose original meaning is 'to get heated' [NCED: 1036]. Subsequently in Luchek Rutul, it was superseded with the synchronic causative from *ʔikʼʷa-, whose original meaning is 'to catch fire' [NCED: 632]. Koshan Aghul, 'to burn (intrans./trans.)' is a suffixal derivation from the verb *ʔVrɬːan- 'to boil (intrans./trans.)' [NCED: 1030].

    Replacements: {'to get heated' > 'to burn'} (Tsakhur, Rutul), {'to catch fire' > 'to burn'} (Luchek Rutul), {'to boil (intrans./trans.)' > 'to burn'} (Koshan Aghul).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with the labile meaning 'to burn (trans./intrans.)'.

    Distinct from Vartashen čilik 'claw' [Gukasyan 1974: 237; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 210; Mobili 2010: 83; Schiefner 1863: 89; Starchevskiy 1891: 501].

    As proposed in [NCED: 210, 1002], this is a compound: ƛʼon-tʼˈol, the second part of which (-tʼˈol) can be identified with Lezgian *tʼɨl (~ -o-) 'finger'. In turn, the first element ƛʼon- is analyzed in [NCED: 210] as ƛʼo-n- from the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- 'to slaughter', i.e. 'nail' as '[the part of the] finger which is being cut'. The latter solution is unlikely on two points. First, both the Archi verb ƛʼʷˈa- and its Proto-Lezgian ancestor *ʔirƛʼːʷär- mean 'to slaughter (an animal)', rather than the generic 'to cut, cut off'. Next, the semantic derivation 'to cut off' > 'fingernail' seems typologically problematic.

    Alternatively analyzed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 301] as ƛʼontʼ-ˈol with a root ƛʼontʼ and the relatively common nominal suffix -ol.

    Distinct from xɨmɨčʼ {хьымычI} 'claw' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 381].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: xɨntʼa [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33]. Apparently from *xɨbna < *xɨbVna.

    Distinct from qˤamž 'claw' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33].

    Distinct from Tpig qːarmaχ 'claw; hook' [Suleymanov 2003: 115], ultimately borrowed from Azerbaijani garmag 'hook'.

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: šːaw with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Uslar 1979: 984, 999; Dirr 1905: 220, 235]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: šːaw {шшав} 'nail' [Genko 2005: 192].

    The same in other subdialects: Khiv šib {шиб}, Turag šab {шаб} with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Genko 2005: 188, 190]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: šib {шиб} with polysemy: 'nail / stone plate' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: kek [abs.] / kʸkː-e- [obl.] {кек} with polysemy: 'nail / hoof / furniture leg' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 154; Gadzhiev 1950: 426; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 523].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kek [abs.] / kʸk-e- [obl.] with polysemy: 'nail / hoof' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 33].

    Some local substitutions are observed in individual languages. In Archi the obscure form ʼontʼˈol is attested. In Kryts, the old root is superseded with *mičʼ 'hoof' [NCED: 819]. In Aghul and Lezgi, 'nail' is denoted by *kerk, whose original meaning is not clear and general antiquity is dubious [NCED: 689] (as proved by the Tabasaran data, *kerk is not the Proto-East Lezgian root for 'nail', but a late areal innovation).

    Superseded with an Azerbaijani loanword in some Nuclear Lezgian lects.

    Replacements: {'hoof' > 'nail'} (Kryts).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to the metathesis *mːäɬː > *ɬːämː in Proto-Nuclear Lezgian.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *mːiɬːV-.

    Distinct from duman ‘fog’ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205], borrowed from Azerbaijani duman 'fog'.

    Distinct from ʁʷˤˈalqi with polysemy ‘fog / light north wind’ [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from ǯif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 60] three terms - kʼabal (sic!), bɨlɨt and ǯif - are quoted as synonyms for 'cloud', whereas 'fog' is translated as zov, which in fact means 'sky' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 197].

    Distinct from inherited ǯuf {джуф}, glossed as 'black cloud; fog' in [Meylanova 1984: 59] and as 'fog' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Another attested word is bulut {булут} 'cloud', borrowed from Azerbaijani bulut 'cloud' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 94]. In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 60], erroneously quoted as buput {бупут}.

    Distinct from čamra 'fog' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 871] (in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 393], quoted as čaˤmra).

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: gɨmɨlʸ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205]. Distinct from čamra 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from čaˤmra 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from čaˤmra 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    The second (probably less frequent) term is äsʷäy {аьсваьй} 'cloud; wall-eye (?) (Russian: пелена на глазу)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 23].

    Distinct from inherited difː 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from inherited Richa dif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from inherited dif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from dif 'fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205].

    Distinct from inherited Tpig dif 'fog' [Suleymanov 2003: 77].

    Differently in the Khanag subdialect: difː with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud / foam' [Uslar 1979: 669, 999], opposed to ams 'fog' [Uslar 1979: 584, 1008]. Both Khanag words difː and ams are glossed as 'fog' in [Dirr 1905: 156, 164, 245].

    Two words for 'cloud' are also quoted for the Khyuryuk subdialect: dif {диф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud / foam' [Genko 2005: 61] and ams {амс} 'cloud' [Genko 2005: 18] (semantic nuances are unknown).

    Two words for 'cloud' are quoted for the Khiv subdialect: ǯif {жжиф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud' [Genko 2005: 68] and ams {амс} 'cloud' [Genko 2005: 18] (semantic nuances are unknown; the latter form is not explicitly marked as Khiv due to erroneous omission of the plus sign).

    The corresponding Literary Tabasaran terms are better documented: dif {диф} with polysemy: 'cloud / rain cloud' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149]; distinct from literary ams 'rain cloud' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 57]. According to [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 149, 305a], in Literary Tabasaran 'fog' is expressed as ǯilˈin dif, literally 'earth's cloud'.

    The same in Literary Lezgi: cːif [abs.] / cʸf-ˈedi- [obl.] {циф} 'cloud' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358; Gadzhiev 1950: 434; Haspelmath 1993: 483, 517]. According to [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 358], in Literary Lezgi 'fog' is expressed as čːilin cːif, literally 'earth's cloud'. Distinct from kpːul ‘rheumatism’ [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 163].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut cːif with polysemy: 'cloud / fog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 205] (regular paradigm).

    First, we must rule out the root *kʼapʼal, which shifted from its original meaning 'group, heap, sheep-flock' > 'cloud' in Kryts [NCED: 448].

    Second, we may exclude the root *kːomːol, which means 'cloud, fog, rheumatism' in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and simply 'rheumatism' in Lezgi. This root has a fairly modest distribution in the meaning 'cloud' and can hardly reflect the Proto-Lezgian basic term. Its Proto-Lezgian or at least Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning can be either 'rheumatism' (if the shift 'rheumatism' > 'cloud, fog' is possible) or rather 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud'. In this case, the shift 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'rheumatism' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul-Lezgi isogloss of areal origin, or the polysemy 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather / rheumatism' existed already on the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian level. Additionally, the retention of the root *ʔamsː with the meaning 'cloud' in some Rutul dialects may indicate that the semantic development *kːomːol 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' > 'cloud' is a late Tsakhur-Rutul process after the split of Proto-West Lezgian. External North Caucasian comparison also proves that the original meaning of Lezgian *kːomːol was 'a k. of precipitation or wet weather' [NCED: 737].

    The real choice consists of two Proto-Lezgian roots: *ʔamsː and *tːiɬːʷ, which are to be distributed among two specific meanings: 'cloud' and 'fog'.

    On formal grounds, the stem *ʔamsː [NCED: 243] has a better chance to represent the Proto-Lezgian term for 'cloud'. It is retained as 'cloud' in Udi, on the one hand, and in Rutul and Aghul, on the other. The root *tːiɬːʷ [NCED: 400], whose Proto-Lezgian meaning in this case must have been 'fog', is retained as 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and in Aghul. In Lezgi, *tːiɬːʷ expanded to 'cloud', having acquired polysemy 'fog / cloud' (whereas the old root *ʔamsː got lost). There are two difficulties with such a scenario. First, *tːiɬːʷ developed into 'cloud' ('fog' > cloud') in Archi. Next, both roots swapped their meanings in Proto-Tabasaran, where *ʔamsː probably meant 'fog' and *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'; it should be noted, however, that the Proto-Tabasaran semantic reconstruction is not very certain.

    The second scenario is that *ʔamsː meant 'fog' in Proto-Lezgian, whereas *tːiɬːʷ meant 'cloud'. This implies that *tːiɬːʷ has been retained as 'cloud' in Archi and probably Proto-Tabasaran, but independently underwent the shift 'cloud' > 'fog' in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh) and Aghul. In its turn, *ʔamsː 'fog' only retained its meaning in Proto-Tabasaran, but independently shifted from 'fog' > 'cloud' in Udi, Rutul and Aghul. It should be noted that both roots swapped their meanings in Aghul.

    The first scenario is much more economical; thus, we follow the formal distribution and reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *ʔamsː 'cloud' and Proto-Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ 'fog'. The problem is that external North Caucasian comparison suggests that it should be *tːiɬːʷ that denoted 'cloud' in Proto-Lezgian. In any case, we must note that, due to natural reasons, both meanings, 'cloud' and 'fog', are frequently interchangeable in mountainous regions.

    An additional term for 'cloud' is the etymologically obscure Caucasian Albanian form alʸeg. It is proposed in [Gippert et al. 2008: IV-5] that alʸeg originates from Lezgian *tːiɬːʷ, but the assumed sound shifts (not discussed by Gippert and Schulze) seem strange and irregular.

    'Cloud' is expressed by Azerbaijani or Dargi loanwords in Budukh and Aghul.

    Replacements: {'fog' > 'cloud'}, {'cloud' > 'fog'}, {'group, heap, sheep-flock' > 'cloud'} (Kryts), {'a k. of precipitation or wet weather; rheumatism' > 'cloud'} (Tsakhur, Rutul).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for the laryngeal prothesis in Vartashen Udi.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is not reconstructible. Udi and Rutul reflect the suffixed variant *ʔamsːV-y.

    Distinct from ˈoˤrču-tːu-class, which is quoted in [Dirr 1908: 172, 225] with the translation 'cold (adj.)' ("the cold water"). A more correct translation should be rather 'having gotten cold', a regular participle from the verb ˈoˤrča- 'to get cold' [Chumakina et al. 2007], Kibrik et al. 1977b: 291].

    Distinct from ʕatχa-lu {гIатхалу} 'cold (of weather)', a participle from ʕatχa 'to become cold (of weather), to catch cold (of human)' [Meylanova 1984: 46].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: mɨkʼa-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].

    Derived from the substantive, attested as Burshag mekʼ (oblique mikʼ-la-) 'cold, frost' [Shaumyan 1941: 151].

    It should be noted, however, that in [Suleymanov 2003: 144], 'cold' is quoted as urʁa-d {ургъад} and urʢa-d ~ urʕa-d {ургIад} (apparently urʢa-d), which represent forms of the Arsug or Khudig subdialect, as is evident from the suffixal -d.

    In the Tpig subdialect, cf. the substantive mekʼ (oblique mekʼ-ila-) 'cold, frost' [Suleymanov 2003: 133; Shaumyan 1941: 151].

    In the Khanag subdialect: mičʼi-lˈi 'cold' [Uslar 1979: 858, 1009; Dirr 1905: 196, 246], applied to both objects (e.g., water) and weather; distinct from aqˤˈi 'cold (said of weather)' [Dirr 1905: 152, 246].

    Two words are quoted for the Khyuryuk subdialect: aqˤˈi {аьхъи} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 25], mičʼi-lˈi {мичIили} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 121] - application and semantic nuances of both terms are unknown.

    Two words with the meaning 'cold' are attested in the Khiv subdialect: ʁ=ˈarʁu {гъаргъу} [Genko 2005: 41] (historically ʁ=ˈa-r-ʁu with the fossilized class exponent -r-) and mičʼ-li {мичIли} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 121] - both terms are applied to objects, but the semantic or pragmatic difference is unclear ('cold' and 'cool'?). Distinct from Khiv aqˤˈu {аьхъю} 'cold' [Genko 2005: 25], which is applied to weather, as may be seen from Genko's examples (cf. also an additional example in [Genko 2005: 147 sub tʼaqʼraqʼ]).

    Three Literary Tabasaran terms are known: ʁ=ˈaʁu {гъабгъу} 'cold' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 329 sub qˤal] (the example: "cold water"); mičʼ-lˈi {мичIли} 'chilly' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 231]; aqˤˈu {аьхъю} 'cold (said of weather)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 72].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: qːa-yˈi {къайи} 'cold, cool (applied to objects)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 176; Gadzhiev 1950: 916; Haspelmath 1993: 501, 517]; perfective participle from the verb reqːˈi- [imperf.] / qːa- [perf.] {къун} 'to get cold' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 193]. Distinct from literary meqʼˈi {мекьи} 'cold (of weather)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 234], derived from the substantive meqʼ {мекь} 'cold (n.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 234].

    Differently in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut meqʼˈi 'cold' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 245].

    It is uncertain how the Proto-Lezgi word for 'cold' should be reconstructed. According to the external data, it is likely that Akhty meqʼˈi is an archaic form, whereas the Gyune participle qːa-yˈi represent a late introduction of areal origin, which superseded meqʼˈi in the meaning ‘cold (of objects)’.

    A rigoristic approach would surmise leaving the Proto-Lezgian slot empty. Nevertheless, we prefer to reconstruct Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼä- 'cold (adj.), derived from Proto-Lezgian *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' [NCED: 808]. This seems to be the most archaic Lezgian expression for 'cold (adj.)', and, indeed, the derivation 'cold, frost' > 'cold (adj.)' can theoretically be reconstructed for the Proto-Lezgian level.

    The substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost' is a Common Lezgian stem, since it is attested in Udi and in Nuclear Lezgian: Aghul, Lezgi (also in Tabasaran, where it shifted to the meaning 'wind (in general)'). The adjective stem *meƛʼä- 'cold' also displays relevant distribution. It is attested in Caucasian Albanian, on the one hand, and in West Lezgian (Tsakhur, Rutul) and Proto-Lezgi, on the other. In some East Lezgian lects - Koshan Aghul (Burshag), Southern Tabasaran (Khiv) - the adjectives for 'cold' contain the same root, but these forms represent synchronic derivatives from the substantive *meƛʼ 'cold, frost'.

    In Udi, 'cold (adj.)' is expressed with *čawχː- [NCED: 346], whose original meaning was substantival, cf. the synchronic polysemy in Udi: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.), frost / ice'.

    The verbal root *ʡiqˤä- 'to get cold' [NCED: 568] forms synchronic participles with the meaning 'cold (adj.)' in Archi and Northern Tabasaran (Dyubek).

    The verbal root *ʔirqːe(r)- 'to get cold' [NCED: 649] forms synchronic participles with the meaning 'cold (adj.)' in some Nuclear Lezgian lects: South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), Proto-Aghul, Proto-Tabasaran, Gyune Lezgi.

    The derivation 'to get cold' > 'cold' is likely to be a relatively late areal isogloss.

    Replacements: {'cold, frost' > 'cold (adj.)'} (passim), {'to be cold' > 'cold (adj.)'} (passim).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Adjectival stem, derived from the primary nominal root.

    In [Fähnrich 1999: 30] the variant eʁ-esun is also quoted - an important archaism, see notes on 'to go'.

    As described in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 72; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Chumakina et al. 2007], a suppletive verb: =ˈaƛi- [inf., imperf.] / =qˤˈa [perf.] / zˈa-ba [imv.] (-ba in the imperative stem is the light verb 'to say') / =hˈeˤ- [potential]. We treat =ˈaƛi- and =qˤˈa as synonyms. The latter is etymologically the same root as =ˈoqˤe- 'to go' q.v.

    There is also another suppletive verb with the more generic meaning 'to come, arrive / to bring (animated & inanimate obj.)', formed with the same roots aʔ- [perf.] / al- [imperf., fut., imv.] and the zero prefix (or with the prefix ʔ- - an automatic prothesis for vocalic onset): allʸes [Kibrik et al. 1999: 63, 869].

    According to the data in [Makhmudova 2001] and [Ibragimov 1978], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=ɨqʼ-a [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.

    According to the data in [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006], the suppletive paradigm is as follows: class=iʔi [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=iqʼ-ä [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.

    Suppletive paradigm: class=iʔi ~ class=r=uʔ-u-r- [imperf.] / y=iqʼ-ɨ-r [perf.] / class=ɨqʼ-ɨ [imv.]. In the imperfective form, with polysemy: 'to go / to come'.

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: qːˤ- [imperf., inf] / af- [perf.] / qːač [imv.] 'to come' [Uslar 1979: 834, 1003; Dirr 1905: 188, 239]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: qːˤ- [imperf., inf.] / af- [perf.] / qːas [imv.] {къюв} 'to come' [Genko 2005: 103].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: ʁˤ- [imperf., inf.] / af- [perf.] / ʁač [imv.] {гъюб} 'to come' [Genko 2005: 45]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁˤ- [imperf., inf.] / af- [perf.] {гъюб} 'to come' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 117].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: qːʷe- [imperf.] / atːˈa- [perf.] / ša [imv.] {атун} 'to come' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 51; Gadzhiev 1950: 628; Haspelmath 1993: 481, 517; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 92].

    The authors of [NCED], confused by the ambiguous Cyrillic orthography, transcribe the perfective stem as ata- with a subsequent incorrect connection to the Udi verb 'to go' q.v. [NCED: 423].

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root, used as the perfective stem for 'to come'. Further see notes on 'to go'.

    Distinct from the suppletive verb =χʷi- [inf., imv.] / =χʷa-l- [imperf.] / χu-l-lˈe [perf.] 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 74; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 243; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 334, 386; Chumakina et al. 2007].

    Distinct from h=atʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 885].

    Another (apparently less frequent) verb for 'to die' is kʸečmiš-x- [Kibrik et al. 1999: 880], which consists of the borrowed Azerbaijani adjective kečmiš 'last, past' plus the Tsakhur verb ɨx- 'to become'.

    Distinct from h=atʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170; Dirr 1913: 165, 241].

    Distinct from class=ɨrqʼ- / class=qʼɨrqʼ- 'to kill (pl. obj.) / to die (pl. subj.)' [Dirr 1912: 144, 166].

    Distinct from class=ɨrqʼ- / class=qʼɨrqʼ- 'to die (pl. subj.)' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 170].

    The same in the Khudig subdialect: kʼ-i- 'to die' [Shaumyan 1941: 183].

    The same in the Usug subdialect: kʼ-e- 'to die' [Shaumyan 1941: 183].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: l=ikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / qːa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] / yikʼ [imv.] / kʼ- [inf.] 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Uslar 1979: 754, 800, 1008; Dirr 1905: 180, 190, 245]. The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: l=ikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / qːa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] / yikʼ [imv.] / kʼ- [inf.] {кIув} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихув} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Genko 2005: 80, 112].

    The same in the Khiv and Khoredzh subdialects: yikʼ-ˈ {йикIуб} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихуб} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.) / to beat up (pl. obj.)' [Genko 2005: 80]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: yikʼ-ˈ [imperf.] / ʁa=kʼ-ˈ [perf.] {йибкIуб} 'to die (sg. subj.) / to kill (sg. obj.)', as opposed to yiχ-ˈ {йихуб} 'to die (pl. subj.) / to kill (pl. obj.)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 184].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: r=eqʼˈi- [imperf.] / qʼˈe- [perf.] / qʼi- ~ qʼi-n-iqʼ [masdar] / yiqʼ [imv.] {кьин, кьиникь} 'to die / to kill' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 205; Gadzhiev 1950: 883; Haspelmath 1993: 289, 503, 518, 522; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 1: 442]. The masdar qʼi-n-iqʼ is reduplicated.

    NCED: 661. Distribution: The Lezgian data on the verbs for 'to die' and 'to kill' can be summarized as follows (the slash sign "/" denotes lability):

'TO DIE/TO KILL'	Proto-CA-Udi	Archi	Kryts	Budukh	Tsakhur	Rutul	Aghul	Tabasaran	Lezgi
*ʔiƛʼe [NCED: 661]	'die/kill' imperf.	'die' sg.	'die/kill'	'die'	'die', 'kill' sg. (different prefixes)	'die/kill' sg. (redupl. = pl.)	'die/kill'	'die/kill' sg.	'die/kill'
*ʔilχʷe [NCED: 635]		'die' pl.						'die/kill' pl.
*ʔatʼʷɨ- [NCED: 271]				'kill'	'die', 'kill' pl. (different prefixes)
*ʔarčːa- [NCED: 265]		'kill'
*VpʼV	*pʼu- 'die/kill' perf.

    The root *ʔiƛʼe can safely be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian labile verb for 'to die / to kill', at least with singular subject ('to die') / object ('to kill') and at least as the imperfective stem.

    The only languages that suppletively discriminate between the imperfective and perfective stems are Caucasian Albanian and Udi. Formally, such a situation could reflect a Proto-Lezgian feature, but CA-Udi *pʼu- (with the ablaut variant *upʼ-) is isolated within Lezgian and possesses rather scant external comparanda (the Khinalug verb iːb-i 'to kill' and the imperative stem iːb-i 'to die'), so it is preferable to regard Caucasian Albanian-Udi *pʼu- as a secondary complication of the verbal paradigm in question.

    Archi and some Nuclear Lezgian lects demonstrate the lexical opposition between verbs with singular and plural subject/object. Formally, this could be a late innovation of areal origin, but there are actually no reasons not to project such a opposition onto the Proto-Lezgian level. If so, the correspondence sg. *ʔiƛʼe / pl. *ʔilχʷe between Archi and Tabasaran should be reflecting the Proto-Lezgian situation. In many other lects *ʔiƛʼe acquired both singular and plural functions.

    Some of the lects have lost the original lability. Thus, in modern Udi 'to kill' is the synchronic causative from 'to die'. In Archi, 'to kill' is euphemistically expressed by the verb 'to perform an action most typically associated with the given object in the current situation' (*ʔarčːa-), although the synchronic causatives from 'to die (sg.)' and 'to die (pl.)' are also used for 'to kill'. In Tsakhur, 'to die' and 'to kill' are distinguished by means of different fossilized prefixes.

    In Budukh, 'to kill' is expressed by *ʔatʼʷɨ-, whose original meaning was 'to cut' [NCED: 271]. Independently, the same root shifted to plural 'to die, kill' in Tsakhur.

    In Rutul dialects, the verb 'to strike, hit' (*yirχˤa- [NCED: 581]) can acquire the basic meaning 'to kill'.

    Consequently, we reconstruct two Proto-Lezgian labile verbs: *ʔiƛʼe 'to die / to kill' (sg.) and *ʔilχʷe 'to die / to kill' (pl.).

    Replacements: {'to cut' > 'to die / to kill'} (Tsakhur).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to the fossilized class prefix in Caucasian Albanian-Udi.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root.

    Distinct from the more specific term tʼartʼa {тIартIа} 'short-haired dog' [Meylanova 1984: 137].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: χʷeː [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73].

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 147], a second word for 'dog' is also quoted: qʼatʼay {кьатIай}. This is actually the adjective qʼätʼ-äy {кьаьтIаьй} 'tailless, short-tailed (said of animals)' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 162] (from qʼatʼ 'cut-off fragment').

    The same in other subdialects: Kurag, Duldug χuy 'dog' [Magometov 1970: 41; Shaumyan 1941: 191]; Tsirkhe χːuy 'dog' [Magometov 1970: 215 sentence 14; Shaumyan 1941: 191].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: χːuy 'dog' [Uslar 1979: 958, 1006; Dirr 1905: 216, 242]. The same in other subdialects: Khyuryuk χːuy {ххуй}, Kumi χuy {хуй} 'dog' [Genko 2005: 166, 168].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: χu {ху} 'dog' [Genko 2005: 166]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: χu {ху} 'dog' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 317].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: kicʼ {кицI} 'dog' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 160; Gadzhiev 1950: 791; Haspelmath 1993: 494, 518].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut kicʼ 'dog' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 73].

    Superseded with loanwords in Archi (< Lak), Rutul and Keren Aghul (< Azerbaijani or Iranian).

    Replacements: {'puppy' > 'dog'} (Lezgi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem seems to have been *χːʷäy-rV-.

    In [Mobili 2010: 151-152] χupː, χupː-sun are also translated into Russian as 'to drink', 'to drink water', but their Azerbaijani glosses rather mean something like 'to suck up (water) slurping'.

    It must be noted that in [Kibrik et al. 1999: 878, 897] this root is quoted with a labialized uvular as ilʸ=oʁʷ-, cf. imperf. class 4 ilʸ-oʁʷ-a, fut. class 4 ilʸ-oʁʷ-as (also perf. class 4 ilʸ-o-d-ʁʷ-u). This labialization contradicts data from other sources and looks strange from the synchronic viewpoint: according to Tsakhur morphophonology, Cʷ normally dissimilates into C after labial o, u, b, p, w, cf., e.g., Mishlesh imperf. 2 hē-čʼʷan ← {h-o-y-y-čʼʷan}, but 3 hōčʼan < *hōčʼʷan ← {h-o-w-y-čʼʷan}, 1/4 hoyčʼan < *hoyčʼʷan ← {h-o-y-čʼʷan} 'to press' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 72, also 70], see the same statement for Mikik in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1988: 41 fn. 116]. It might be suggested that Kibrik et al.'s transription ilʸoʁʷa- reflects some sporadic and irregular progressive assimilation, e.g. -oʁa- > -oʁʷa-?

    The same in the other subdialects: Tsirkhe, Duldug, Kurag uχ-a- 'to drink' [Shaumyan 1941: 145; Magometov 1970: 151].

    The same basic verb in the Khanag subdialect: wuqː-ˈ 'to drink' [Uslar 1979: 627, 1001]. It should be noted that in [Dirr 1905: 212, 237], this verb is transcribed as wuʁ- or uʁ- {у̨ҕ-} 'to drink' - the form either actually represents some specific Southern Tabasaran subdialect or the beginning of the phonetic process qː > ʁ in Khanag during the 2^nd half of the 19^th century between Uslar's and Dirr' records.

    The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: wuqː-ˈ {вубкъув} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 33].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: uχ-ˈ [imperf., perf., inf.] / iχ [imv.] {ухуб} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 157].

    In some subdialects another root is attested: Chara ˈuq- {ухъуб}, Sirtych üq-ˈ {юхъуб} 'to drink' [Genko 2005: 157, 198]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: uq-ˈ {убхъуб} 'to drink' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 291].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: qʷa- {хъун} 'to drink' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 354; Gadzhiev 1950: 539; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 518; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 358].

    Three other roots, attested with the generic meaning 'to drink' in Lezgian lects, are clear innovations from the distributive point of view.

    In Archi, 'to drink' is expressed with *ʔVcʼV (~ -cʼː-). This root seems isolated within Lezgian, but external North Caucasian comparison seems to point to the original meaning 'to gulp (vel sim.)' [NCED: 1017].

    The root *ʔoχʷa has acquired the basic meaning 'to drink' in Aghul and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning is likely to have been 'to gulp' (further to North Caucasian 'to suck') [NCED: 1027].

    Similarly, *ʔoqʷa- has become the basic root for 'to drink' in Lezgi and some Southern Tabasaran subdialects (an areal isogloss); its original Proto-Lezgian meaning was 'to suck' [NCED: 222].

    Replacements: {'to gulp' > 'to drink'} (Archi, Aghul, Southern Tabasaran), {'to suck' > 'to drink'} (Lezgi, Southern Tabasaran), {'to drink' > 'a gulp'} (Archi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular, except for vocalic fluctuations.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root.

    Distinct from qːurah {къурагь} 'dry (unknown application); dry (of weather)' [Meylanova 1984: 91].

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: ɢuru-n [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242].

    A second candidate is s=uqu-d or s=uqʼu-d 'dry', quoted in [Dirr 1912: 172, 201] with the example "dry firewood" (note that Dirr's notation rather speaks in favour of s=uqʼu-d with ejective -qʼ-). This is the participle from the verb 'to get dry', which is quoted in [Makhmudova 2001: 245] as s=uɢ- {сукъас} with -ɢ- (sic!). Its counterpart in the Borch-Khnov dialect sounds as su=q=uq- {сухъухъури} 'to get dry' [Ibragimov 1978: 268, 272], with -q- in the root. The exact phonetics, as well as the etymology of this Rutul verb is unclear.

    For the Khudig subdialect, the unclear form arka-d 'dry' is quoted in [Shaumyan 1941: 160]; apparently a corrupt spelling.

    Distinct from Tpig qːurah {къурагь} 'drought; arid' [Suleymanov 2003: 118], borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid'.

    The same root in the Kumi subdialect: qː=ˈi-r-cːi {къирцци} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 101] (with the class infix -r- and the verbal perfective exponent qː=).

    Differently in other subdialects: Khanag qːurˈi 'dry' [Dirr 1905: 189, 244] (not found in [Uslar 1979]), Khyuryuk qːurˈi {къури} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 102].

    The same in Literary Tabasaran: ʁe=yˈe-r-cːu {гъеерццу} ~ ʁ=ˈe-r-cːu {гъерццу} 'dry', found in such examples as "withered flowers" [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 155a], "dry leaves rustled in the breeze" [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 349a] (with the fossilized class infix -r-). Distinct from Literary Tabasaran qːurˈah {къурагь} 'dry (of climate)' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 207], borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid'.

    Three words for 'dry' are quoted for the Khiv subdialect, with no known difference: qːurˈu {къуру} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 102], ʁurˈu {гъуру} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 45] and ʁ=ˈe-r-cːu {гъерццу} 'dry' [Genko 2005: 42] (with the fossilized class infix -r-). The Khiv opposition qːurˈu / ʁurˈu is very suspicious (Genko's error?); it should be noted that the etymologically correct variant is qːurˈu.

    The same in Literary Lezgi: qʼurˈa-y {кьурай} 'dry' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Gadzhiev 1950: 831; Haspelmath 1993: 504, 518], participle from the verb qʼurˈa- {кьурун} 'to dry (intrans.)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208]. A second literary term for 'dry' is the paronymous qʼurˈu {кьуру} [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Gadzhiev 1950: 831; Haspelmath 1993: 504] - an inherited form, whose vocalism may have been influenced by the Azerbaijani word guru 'dry'. The difference between qʼurˈa-y and qʼurˈu is unclear. Distinct from literary qʼurˈah {кьурагь} 'dry (of climate)' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208; Haspelmath 1993: 504], ultimately borrowed from Azerbaijani gurag 'drought; arid', but influenced by the inherited qʼura-. For morphology cf. also the literary substantive qʼur {кьур} 'dryness' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 208].

    Morphologically different in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut qːur-qːˈur 'dry' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 242]; this is a reduplicated formation from the same Lezgi root.

    In South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), 'dry' is a participle from the etymologically obscure verbal root *saʔV- or *aʔV-, unattested elsewhere [LEDb: #251].

    In many Tabasaran subdialects, the original participle has been superseded with the participle from another verb for 'to dry (intrans.)': ecː-, see notes on Common Tabasaran.

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular up to Azerbaijani influenced forms.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root 'to be dry, get dry'.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: kʼɨrɨ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 12].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: ew 'ear' [Uslar 1979: 677, 1009; Dirr 1905: 166, 245]. The same in the Kumi subdialect: iw {ив} 'ear' [Genko 2005: 73].

    The same in other subdialects: Khiv eb {эб}, Chara ib {иб} 'ear' [Genko 2005: 73, 193]. The same in Literary Tabasaran: ib {иб} 'ear' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 172].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: yab [abs.] / yapː-ˈu- [obl.] {яб} 'ear' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 399; Gadzhiev 1950: 897; Haspelmath 1993: 493, 518].

    The same in the Akhty dialect: Khlyut eb [abs.] / epː-ˈeni- [obl.] 'ear' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 12].

    In many languages, synchronic forms are modified with fossilized plural suffixes.

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root.

    Distinct from kːul {кIул} 'earth' [Gukasyan 1974: 146; Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199; Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29; Mobili 2010: 178].

    All sources quote kːul and očˤal as synonyms for 'earth, soil', except for [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990]. The latter dictionary gives only kːul as the translation for 'earth, soil' (with polysemy: 'earth, soil / territory, plot'). On the contrary, text evidence from [Ganenkov et al. 2008: 240 (8), 254 (34, 41)] confirms očˤal as the most generic and common word for 'earth, soil', as well as 'land': "There is a place named so-and-so ... which existed on the Nidzh land (očˤal) as early as 2400-2500 years ago", "The soil (očˤal) cleans it (just prepared vodka) of its odours ... We take it (a buried jug with vodka) out from the ground (očˤal)".

    According to Dm. Ganenkov's p.c., in Nidzh kːul indeed means 'soil', but this word is very rare in the collected corpus. The default expression for all the meanings is currently očˤal.

    Distinct from the term očˤal {очъал} 'earth' [Gukasyan 1974: 185; Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 19, 26; Schiefner 1863: 78; Schulze 2001: 303; Starchevskiy 1891: 499]. In [Gukasyan 1974: 185] this is quoted as očːˤal {оч́ал} (apparently an error, see notes on Nidzh Udi); in [Fähnrich 1999: 25] the word is quoted as simply očal - apparently for očˤal; also quoted as očˤal in [Schulze 2001], despite the fact that Bežanovs' {ч̆} may cover čː, čˤ and čːˤ; graphical {c} in [Schiefner 1863], {ч} in [Dirr 1903] and {ц} in [Starchevskiy 1891] can hardly clarify the phonetical nature of the sibilant. It should be noted that normally this term is graphically opposed to očːˤi 'dirt, mud' (e.g., [Fähnrich 1999: 25; Dirr 1903: 18; Schiefner 1863: 78]).

    Vartashen očˤal means 'earth, ground', not 'soil', cf. some contexts: "to the ground", "he saw, as a mouse got out of the ground", "the earth quakes" (= 'earthquake') [Dirr 1903: 19, 64], "the silver ingot melted and spilt on the ground" [Schiefner 1863: 68]. In [Bezhanov & Bezhanov 1902] {оч̆ал} normally means 'earth' as opposed to 'heaven' ("I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth", etc.) or 'ground' (cf. above Mt. 13.5, where two terms are opposed).

    Distinct from the adverbs qʼˈa-tːu 'on the ground', qʼˈa-tːu-k 'to the ground' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 302] (from *qʼa- 'down' [NCED: 616] with the adjective suffix -tːu) and dunˈil with polysemy 'sky / world / life' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 224] (the latter was borrowed from Avar dunˈiyal 'world / life / weather', ultimately from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world').

    A second term for 'earth, soil' is qʼum {кьум} [Meylanova 1984: 96]. Semantic or pragmatic details are unknown.

    A second candidate is the more marginal term torpaχ [Kibrik et al. 1999: 888, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 342], which means both 'earth, plot' (cf. Ibragimov & Nurmamedov's example "ground landlord") and 'earth, soil' (cf. torpaχ-šunas 'soil scientist, pedologist' [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 342]). Borrowed from Azerbaijani torpag 'earth (soil, plot, land, ground)'.

    Distinct from ǯilʸ {джилʹ} 'earth floor' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 890; [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 160].

    Distinct from dʸunʸye 'earth, world' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 872, 894; Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 158], borrowed from Azerbaijani dünya 'earth, world' (ultimately from Arabic dunyaː 'earth, world').

    The old term nʸaqʼʷ [abs.] / nʸuqʼ- [obl.] is retained in the meaning 'grave, tomb' [Kibrik et al. 1999: 883]; in [Ibragimov & Nurmamedov 2010: 277] this is quoted with polysemy: 'clay, earth / grave, tomb'.

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29], Literary Tsakhur and Gelmets Tsakhur forms for 'earth' are interchanged: naqʼʷ (an error for nʸaqʼʷ) is quoted for the literary language, čʼiye - for Gelmets.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: nʸaqʼʷ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199]. Polysemy: 'earth / grave, tomb'.

    A second candidate is čʼiye [Dirr 1913: 215, 226], but this rather means 'earth, ground', cf. an example: "Underground there is a jug with oil (= badger)" (a riddle) [Dirr 1913: 119].

    Distinct from ǯil-a 'floor' (i.e. 'earth floor'?) [Dirr 1913: 158].

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 29], a second term for 'earth' is quoted: čʼir {чIир}, which actually means 'grass-covered place' [Dirr 1912: 181] (cf. its Ixrek Rutul counterpart čʼir 'pasture, common' [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 297]).

    Distinct from ǯil ‘earth floor’ [Ibragimov 1978: 117].

    Distinct from ǯil {джил} ‘earth floor’ [Dzhamalov & Semedov 2006: 108].

    Distinct from the more specific Burshag term neqʼʷ with polysemy: 'black soil / grave, tomb' in [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 190, 199] (the two meanings are formally discriminated in the ergative form).

    Distinct from Richa rug 'dust' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200].

    Distinct from ǯil 'earth, ground; floor' [Dirr 1907: 115].

    A second candidate is Tpig ǯil, but the gloss 'earth, soil' in [Suleymanov 2003: 81] seems an inaccuracy; one would expect the meaning 'ground'.

    Distinct from Tpig qʼuramat 'land (opposed to water)' [Suleymanov 2003: 123].

    The same in the Khanag subdialect: rug 'earth, soil' [Uslar 1979: 898, 994; Dirr 1905: 203, 229] (specified as 'soil' by both authors). Distinct from Khanag yišʷ 'place; land, region' [Uslar 1979: 755; Dirr 1905: 180].

    The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: rug {руг} 'earth' [Genko 2005: 133], distinct from yišʷ {йишв} 'place; land, region' [Genko 2005: 81].

    The same in the Khiv subdialect: rug ~ rugʷ {руг(в)} 'earth, soil' [Genko 2005: 133] (specified by Genko as 'soil'; the variant with gʷ is etymologically unclear). Distinct from Khiv ǯil {жжил} 'ground; floor; field' [Genko 2005: 68] and from Khiv yišʷ {йишв} 'place; land, region' [Genko 2005: 81].

    Two Literary Tabasaran terms for 'soil' are known: rug {руг} with polysemy: 'soil / dust, litter' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 262] and ǯil {жил} with polysemy: 'soil / ground / land / Earth' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 162]. Distinct from Literary Tabasaran yišʷ {йишв} 'place' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 186].

    Distinct from Gyune čːil [Uslar 1896: 594, 613], which means 'earth, ground, earth floor' rather than specific 'soil', according to Uslar's examples: "The earth trembled (= earthquake)", "The earth is covered with grass", "He has the earth as his mattress, the sky for cover" [Uslar 1896: 594], "I have smoothed the earth" [Uslar 1896: 411], but also "The earth of this village is fertile" [Uslar 1896: 594].

    The expected Gyune word **naqʼʷ is not documented by Uslar.

    Differently in Literary Lezgi: naqʼʷ {накьв} 'earth, soil' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 250; Gadzhiev 1950: 245; Haspelmath 1993: 499, 518]. A second candidate is čːil {чил, ччил} with polysemy: 'ground / soil' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 370; Gadzhiev 1950: 245; Haspelmath 1993: 484, 518]. A third term is rug [abs.] / rukːʷ-ˈadi- [obl.] {руг} with polysemy: 'dust / soil / litter' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 280] (only as 'dust' in [Haspelmath 1993: 505]). The pragmatic or semantic difference between three words for 'soil' is unclear, although naqʼʷ seems to be the most basic term in this meaning.

    In the Akhty dialect: Khlyut naqʼʷ 'earth, soil' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 199]. Distinct from Khlyut rug [abs.] / rukː-ˈadi- [obl.] 'dust' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 200] and čːil 'earth floor' [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 176].

    The external comparison strongly suggests that naqʼʷ was the Proto-Lezgi term for 'earth, soil'. The word rug originally meant 'dust', but has acquired the additional meaning 'soil' - an areal isogloss shared with Aghul and Tabasaran (q.v.). Lezgi čːil denoted 'ground', but currently tends to broaden into the meaning 'soil' under the influence of similar polysemy in Azerbaijani and Russian.

    In the Udi branch, however, *näqʼʷ has been lost, and 'earth, soil' is now expressed with the etymologically obscure form kːul. Furthermore, in Nidzh Udi, the word očˤal, whose Proto-Udi meaning was 'earth, ground', has acquired the second meaning 'earth, soil'.

    In Mishlesh Tsakhur, *näqʼʷ was superseded with *čʼura (~ -o-) [NCED: 555], accompanied with the shift 'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'.

    In East Lezgian, *näqʼʷ tends to be superseded with *rukː, whose original meaning was 'dust' [NCED: 603]. This is not a Proto-East Lezgian replacement, but a late areal isogloss (probably Tabasaran-induced): *rukː became the default root for 'earth, soil' in Tabasaran, many Aghul dialects (Koshan, Gequn, Fite, proper Aghul) and some Lezgi dialects (Gyune).

    Reconstruction of the Proto-Lezgian term for 'earth, ground' is less obvious.

    The root *čːil [NCED: 342] can be reconstructed with the Proto-Nuclear Lezgian meaning 'earth floor' (thus Tsakhur, Rutul, Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi). In East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), however, this word also denotes 'earth, ground', as opposed to various terms for 'soil'. External North Caucasian comparison suggests that *čːil could theoretically be reconstructed as the Proto-Lezgian root for 'earth, ground'.

    On the other hand, in Proto-Caucasian Albanian-Udi, the word for 'earth, ground' originates from Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) [NCED: 684]: Proto-Udi očˤa-l 'earth, ground', Caucasian Albanian ašˤa-l 'earth, ground' (the correspondence Udi čˤ ~ CA šˤ is unique, but may represent different treatments of the Proto-Lezgian consonant cluster). In the rest of Lezgian, the root got lost. Lezgian *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) possesses good external comparanda with the semantics of 'earth' [NCED: 684].

    Thus, the easiest solution is to reconstruct *yo(m)čV (~ ʔ-) with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth, ground' and *čːil with the Proto-Lezgian meaning 'earth floor'.

    If so, *yo(m)čV 'earth, ground' must have been lost in Archi (where there is only a new adverbial formation 'on the ground') and in Nuclear Lezgian. Various terms for 'earth, ground' are attested in Nuclear Lezgian: in Proto-Tsakhur, *čʼura [NCED: 555] (with the semantic shift 'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground'); in South Lezgian (Kryts, Budukh), etymologically obscure qʼum; in East Lezgian (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi), *čːil (with the shift 'earth floor' > 'earth, ground').

    It should be noted that in some East Lezgian lects (Literary Tabasaran, Literary Lezgi), *čːil has further shifted from 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'.

    Some additional meaning shifts to be noted are: *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'land' in Archi; *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'grave, tomb' in Tsakhur and Aghul (Koshan, Gequn, Fite, proper Aghul); *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'earth, ground / land' in Rutul; *näqʼʷ 'earth, soil' > 'clay' in Ixrek Rutul.

    In all the aforementioned cases, the bidirectional shifts between 'earth, soil' and 'earth, ground' can be explained as influenced by Azerbaijani or Russian polysemy.

    Replacements: {'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'} (Nidzh Udi, Literary Tabasaran, Literary Lezgi), {'clearing, uncultivated land' > 'earth, ground' > 'earth, soil'} (Mishlesh Tsakhur), {'dust' > 'earth, soil'} (Tabasaran, Aghul, Lezgi), {'earth, soil' > 'grave, tomb'} (Tsakhur and Aghul), {'earth, soil' > 'earth, ground / land'} (Rutul), {'earth, soil' > 'land'} (Archi), {'earth, soil' > 'clay'} (Ixrek Rutul), {'earth floor' > 'earth, ground'} (Aghul, Tabasaran, Lezgi).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary substantive root. The oblique stem is *niqʼʷɨ-.

    Synchronically distinct from the suppletive verb 'to eat (subj. = animal)': =kˈukin- [imperf., imv.] / =kˈun- [inf., perf.], see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 72; Kibrik et al. 1977a 3: 242; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 259; Chumakina et al. 2007] (perfective =kˈunni probably < kun-tːˈe, for the nasal sandhi see [Kibrik et al. 1977a 1: 304; Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 69]). As correctly proposed in [Kibrik et al. 1977a 2: 73 fn. 51] and [NCED: 207], all the stems of both verbs originate from the "Proto-Archi" root kʷan (or rather kʷan / kʷen).

    Distinct from lˈah-bo- 'to want to eat smth.' [Chumakina et al. 2007; Kibrik et al. 1977b: 271] (complex verb, formed with the suppletive light verb -bo- 'to say').

    In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 271] 'to eat' is glossed as čʼatʼ yixǝr, lit. 'flat cake, scone' + 'to be, exist' apparently due to an inaccurate Russian question to a Budukh informant: Russian collocation of the type есть хлеб means both 'to eat bread' and 'there is bread'.

    Synchronically, a suppletive paradigm: class=ʔil-ä-r- [imperf.] / liʔ-i-r [perf.] / class=il-ä [imv.]. In [Makhmudova 2001: 70, 94, 98, 114, 147, 158, 209, 247], the perfective and imperative stems are consistently quoted as ul-e- - contracted forms of class 3 (*w=)? In [Comrie & Khalilov 2010: 271], the perfective stem is quoted as luʔˤ-u- with unclear pharyngealization.

    Distinct from y=ɨx- 'to eat (subj. = animal)' [Makhmudova 2001: 94] (not found in other Rutul sources).

    Synchronically, a suppletive paradigm: il-e-r- [imperf.] / liʔ-i-r [perf.] / il-e [imv.].

    Synchronically, a suppletive paradigm: class=il-e-r- [imperf.] / liʔ-i-r [perf.] / class=il-i [imv.].

    The same verb in other subdialects: Kurag, Tsirkhe ʡutʼ-a- 'to eat' [Magometov 1970: 142, 206 sentence 11, 215 sentence 22]; Duldug Hutʼ-a- 'to eat' [Shaumyan 1941: 181]. It should be noted that for the Tsirkhe subdialect the infinitive form Hal-a-s 'to eat' is quoted in [Shaumyan 1941: 181].

    Similar paradigm in the Khanag subdialect: ü-l-d- [imperf.] / uˤpʼ- [perf., imv., inf.: class 2 sg.] / uˤtʼ- [perf., imv., inf.: class pl.] 'to eat' [Uslar 1979: 938; Dirr 1905: 211, 247]. Some interesting Khanag aorist forms (class 2) are also quoted by Dirr: el-, ül-, where medial -l- is the imperfective prefix.

    The same in the Khyuryuk subdialect: ˈü-l-d- [imperf.] / uˤpʼ-, uˤtʼ- [perf., inf.] {уьпIуьв} 'to eat' [Genko 2005: 159].

    The same in other subdialects: Khiv, Chara ipʼ-ˈ {ипIуб} 'to eat' [Genko 2005: 76] (regular paradigm).

    Suppletive paradigm in Literary Tabasaran: ipʼ-ˈ [sg. obj.] / itʼ-ˈ [pl. obj.] {ипIуб, итIуб} 'to eat' [Khanmagomedov & Shalbuzov 2001: 179].

    The same in Literary Lezgi: ne- [imperf.] / tʼü- [perf.] / neʔ [imv.] {тIуьн} 'to eat' [Talibov & Gadzhiev 1966: 326; Gadzhiev 1950: 194; Haspelmath 1993: 509, 518; Gyulmagomedov 2004, 2: 289].

    In Proto-Nuclear Lezgian, *ʔikʷVn- was superseded by the verbal root *ʔiʔʷäl- [NCED: 625], whose original meaning is not entirely clear (cf. its Archi cognate with the meaning 'to want to eat smth.', and further North Caucasian comparanda which mean 'to bite' or 'to feed on smth.').

    Additionally, in Tsakhur, *ʔiʔʷäl- was superseded by *ʔiɬʷV(n)- [NCED: 516], which originally meant 'to graze, pasture' in Proto-Lezgian.

    Replacements: {'to graze, pasture' > 'to eat'} (Tsakhur).

    Reconstruction shape: Correspondences seem regular.

    Semantics and structure: Primary verbal root with several Ablaut grades.

    Dictinct from Vartashen qːˤaqːapun {къаъкъаъпун} 'fried eggs' [Gukasyan 1974: 156]; according to [NCED: 932], qːˤaqːa-pun with an unclear suffix -pun, but such an analysis is uncertain.

    Tsakhur-Kum Tsakhur: qʼuqʼ [Kibrik & Kodzasov 1990: 123].