Notes: The PA form must be a metathesis < *roq̇:u < (regularly) *jorq̇:V (a metathesis from *ʔorq̇:V would be impossible). This is the main reason for reconstructing *j- in PEC and PNC, and other languages do not contradict it (the final proof would of course be the Nakh and Lezghian data: in fact, it seems possible that in some Lezghian languages there occurred a confusion of PL roots *jo(r)q: 'time' and *jiq: 'day' < PEC *Hwiq̇_V q.v.; thus, Lezg. lit. juʁ 'day' has an unexplained -u- which would very well fit for a reflex of PL *jo(r)q:).
Trubetzkoy (1930) compared the WC forms with Lak. ʁi 'summer' ( < *ʁwĭnʔV) q.v. and with some reflexes of PEC *G_HōlnV 'summer'. This etymology (confusing two different EC roots) did not take into account the existence of an opposition between *ʁ́a and *ʁ́Iʷa in PWC, and should be now abolished. See also a discussion of the two roots in Abdokov 1983, 94-95 (also with a great deal of confusion between several EC and WC roots, although the comparison of PA *q̇:oru and Ub. ʁ́a is correct). Absolutely improbable is the comparison of WC forms with Georg. dro 'time' and dʁe 'day' (Lomtatidze 1955) or with Av. riʔi 'summer' (Shagirov 1).