Notes: The etymology seems phonetically and semantically quite reliable. See Abdokov 1983, 98 (with some confusion of several EC roots, but containing a basically correct comparison Av. mic̣:ir : PAK *nazǝ).
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (except that we would rather expect *muχ or *maχ in PD - thus it is not excluded that the PD form, as well as Lak. meχ:, is also a loanword). Since the root is often used for denoting objects made of iron (beads, horseshoe, hoe/mattock etc.), it seems tempting to compare Ub. maχʷǝ́ta 'hoe'. Phonetically the comparison seems satisfactory (presupposing PNC *mɦŏχU), but the Ub. word does not have cognates in other WC languages, and its morphological structure is not quite clear, so the problem needs further investigation.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Lak. form hi goes back regularly to *mihi (with a regular reduction of initial *m- + narrow vowel). The meaning "birch" in PTs and Lak is due to the influence of another root, PEC *mħĕrqwĕ 'birch', which itself was not preserved in these languages (on the origin of Lak. dialectal maq 'birch' see under *mħĕrqwĕ).
Although the roots *mħĕrqwĕ and *mĭhV appear to be in complementary distribution, there is no way to unite them phonetically, and they must be treated as separate etyma (the former meaning "birch", the latter, probably, "alder").
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The root obviously meant some odorous grass (cf. "mint" in PL and PN, "hay" in PD, "sweetbrier" in PN), but it is hard to guess the particular species. The comparison involves some metatheses which are only natural in a trisyllabic stem like this.
Ultimately the stem can be derived from PNC *HmĭɦwV 'smell, odour' q.v., but it certainly already existed separately in PEC.
The stem was borrowed in some other Caucasian languages: Osset. nūrɨ 'garlic', Georg. niori, Svan. niwra id. (see Abayev 1973, 193).
Notes: Correspondences are fully regular (*m- before a following non-nasal liquid yielding *b- in PWC), and, despite the root's not wide representation in EC, its PNC antiquity seems quite probable. Not quite secure is the reconstruction of labialisation in PNC: in PWC we would rather expect a usual dissimilatory delabialisation after a labial. Since the attested Av.-And.-Tsezian forms can go back both to *-ćw- and to *-ć-, we would prefer to reconstruct a non-labialized *-ć- and assume an assimilatory process in PWC.
Notes: The original root structure is in this case preserved in PWC. All EC languages reflect an expressive reduplicated form; reduplication was probably favoured by the existence of several semantically close reduplicated insect names (see *cīmc_V,*c̣ĕlc̣ŭ,*ć̣imVć̣V et al.). Otherwise correspondences are regular.
It is, perhaps, possible to find the non-reduplicated stem within EC in Tind. mic:u-q̇u 'tick' (presupposing PA *mic̣:V-q̇:u; Andian loanwords are Inkh. mic̣iq̇u, Tsez. mic̣iq̇u 'tick').
Notes: A very widely represented root, and there is no doubt in its archaic character. Most languages also reflect the common EC derivate *hwmĭʒū 'honey' (in some of the modern languages reflexes of these two roots later merged or influenced each other, see above).
The EC-WC comparison see Абдоков 1983, 149. It seems probable, but there are reservations: if the WC form is really related, one must reconstruct *mĭʒ_ŭ with a short final vowel (opposed to -ū in *hwmĭʒ_ū 'honey'); also unclear are the reasons for dropping *m- in PWC.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The original meaning was, perhaps, 'dark grey' or 'dark yellow' (in Lak. 'dark' > 'blind', which is a rather usual semantic development). The Lak. form contains an adjectival infix (going back to a suffix) -r-: murč̣i- < *mič̣rV- < *mīč̣V-rV-.
Notes: See Trubetzkoy 1922, 239, 242;1930, 275 (who also compares Darg. berħi 'sun' which is reflecting a different NC root, see PNC *wirǝ̄q̇_Ă), Abdokov 1983, 96. The metathesizes form is probably reflected in HU: Hurr. šimī-gǝ 'sun' (with a diminutive suffix), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 23.
The inner analysis of the WC form (prefix *ma- + *ʎʷV 'white, light') which had been accepted by many authors (see Чарая 1912, 46; Яковлев 1948, 273, 292; 1941, 260; Rogava 1956, 26; Kuipers 1960, 111; Shagirov 1, 262) must be regarded as a folk etymology, because of the obvious relationship between the EC and WC forms.
Interesting is the comparison of the WC forms with Old Georgian sa-mχari 'south' (Чикобава 1953, 71); on the other hand, Mészaros' comparison of WC forms with PEC *Hwīq̇_ī 'day' (1934, 242) is absolutely untenable.
Notes: The root should be (for phonetic reasons) kept apart from *mōrŁV 'man, male' q.v. In PAK we should rather expect *Pƛ̣́ǝ: reason for dropping the initial labial is not quite clear (perhaps through influence of another root, PWC *Ł́V 'male' < *lĭwŁĔ q.v.).
