Comments:ССЕ 213-214. Werner 2, 304 makes an attempt to regard the word as a compound *cɨʔG- 'head' + iʔŋ 'skin' and reconstructs <*t'ǝŋǝ> (Kompositum). There is, however, a number of objections: 1) tonal characteristics of *cǝŋe are strongly against a compound of *cɨʔG+iʔŋ (two glottal stops must have had disappeared!); 2) *iʔŋ 'skin' is probably an unexisting form: Werner himself analyzes iʔŋ as "plural of ī 'skin'" (see 1, 373); 3) this ī 'skin' goes back to PY *ʔik (q.v.) (which Werner himself - 1, 392 - reconstructs as <*igǝ>. The "compound" etymology of *cǝŋe is thus completely untenable. Werner also doubts that Kott. heŋai belongs to this root - but in fact it is a completely regular reflex, see КС 151 (analogously cf. PY *cēse 'boot' > Kott. hēči, PY *cV(n)t- 'husband' > Kott. hat-).