Comment: In Archi cf. also heIrša-s (dur. heIršu-r) 'to run' (from the Ablaut grade *häšʷä- with a durative infix). The MSU spelling is heIrš:a-s, but the word is impossible to separate from šeI-s 'to run away' (connected like qIe-s : heIrqIa-s 'to go, walk'), thus the tenseness of -š:- is either misspelled or expressive (another solution would be a contamination with PL *[š:ʷ]ar- q.v.). Cf. also Ag. at:-iš- 'to jump', perhaps also ʁa-jša- 'to stand up'.
Comment: Isolated in Tsakh.,but having reliable external parallels. Not quite clear is the source of Tsakh. pharyngealization; otherwise the form goes back regularly to PL *hola.
Comment: Cf. also Tsakh. ḳ-o=ʁIa- 'to swallow'. The vocalism is hard to reconstruct (this may be a rare case of *-u- in a verbal stem); pharyngealization in Tsakh. and Rut. is probably secondary (due to the loss of initial laryngeal?).
Comment: There is not enough evidence to reconstruct the vocalism and the initial laryngeal (probably explaining the excessive pharyngealization in Arch.).
Comment: The Lezg. form is isolated among Lezg. languages; therefore the protoform can be reconstructed with a labialized initial laryngeal or with w-, with medial *-r- or -l-. We must also note the similarity of Lezg. werč with Osset. wärcc 'quail' which has a good Iranian etymology (Iran. *vartika, cf. Old Indian vartaka 'quail'); thus a possibility of Iranian loan must also be considered (although such a semantic difference is strange in a loan).
Comment: Cf. also Ag. Bursh. ħamš, Burk. (with metathesis) šʷaħ, Fit. hex́ʷ, Tp. ħäšʷ-ar, Tsakh. obl. ješɨ- 'caraway', Tab. Düb. haIš-am 'weed'. 4th class in Tsakh. and Arch., but 3d class in Rut. The Archi form reflects a metathesis of the resonant into Anlaut and the *-Vj-suffix (mušu < *ħamšu-j).
Comment: Cf. also Lezg. Khl. et:i, Ag. attrib. oIržu- ( < oIrč̣-du- ). Tab. (-č-) and Agul (-ž-) have irregular reflexes of *č̣:; cf. however, normal development in Ag. Bursh. ħarč:-le-r, Fit. ħurč:i-l-t.
Comment: Cf. also Lezg. Khl. ič, Tab. Düb. waIč, Ag. Bursh. heč, Fit. hič, Burk. ħäč, Arch. pl. aInš-um. 3d class in all class-distinguishing languages. Obl. base in *-a can be reconstructed on basis of Tsakh. eče-; on the other hand, Rut. obl. base ičir- points to the PL Ablaut *-ä-/*-i-. Thus, the original PL obl. base can be reconstructed as *ħimča-. Medial *-m- is reconstructed by comparing the Arch. -n- with labialisation in Tab. (wič < *ħäwč < *ħämč); in other languages the medial *-m- was lost (regularly) without trace.
Comment: 4th class in all class-distinguishing languages. Cf. also Lezg. Khl. erg. erč:-eni, Ag. Burk. irǯ, Tp. erǯ id. The Anlaut correspondences are exceptional: quite strange is Tab. m-; the Archi pharyngealisation points to *ħ-, but other languages point rather to *ʔ(I). Perhaps we should reconstruct *ħʷ- (not attested elsewhere; this would provide at least some reason for Tab. m-). But otherwise the correspondences are quite regular: medial -r- in Lezg. and Ag., combined with the variation ʔ-/l- in Rut. (liǯ < *ʔilǯ) point unambiguously to PL *-l-.
The oblique stem can not be reconstructed (the only form with a vocalic obl. base is Tsakh. ižɨ-, which is not enough for reconstruction).
Comment: In Tab. and Ag. there occurred a metathesis (*Hɨrč:ʷ > *rɨč:ʷ) with the loss of initial laryngeal; that is why both reconstructing *ħ- and *ʡ- (on basis of the Arch. pharyngealisation) is permitted. The PL obl. vowel stem must have been *Hɨrč:ʷɨ-; it became the direct stem (possibly with a suffixed *-j) in Eastern Lezghian, where afterwards the initial weak syllable disappeared. This would explain the Kryz., Bud. and Rut. forms (the latter two have finally added the plural suffix to the root). Unclear is the element -ḳrɨ in Tsakh. See Гигинейшвили 1977, 85.
