Notes: The initial cluster *cH may explain some irregularities in reflexation (the most severe ones - not explainable by interlingual borrowings - are strengthening *s- > *s:- in PL and voicing in PWC). It is possible that the monosyllabic structure *cHǝ̆ itself is a contraction < *cǝħV or *ħǝcV - in which case the PTs form should be considered as the most archaic one. Cf. also š(V)- in Urart. š(V)-usǝ 'first', as well as HU *suj- > Hurr. šui(-ne), Urart. šuinǝ 'all, every' (cf. a similar semantic development in several EC languages), see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 38.
Notes: One of very widely spread common NC roots. Correspondences are quite regular (Nakh *p- reflects labialisation, while *sṭ is a result of the following -j-). There may have existed an early variant *ćĭwo (or *ćĭwjo) which would account for Nakh forms without *p- (*sṭ-aḳ) and the PWC absence of labialisation.
A possible HU parallel is *-s(u)wa in Hurr. tar-ž(u)wa-nnǝ, Urart. tar-šua-nǝ 'man, human being' (where *tar- is probably connected with *tur- 'male', see *lɨwŁV); see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 39.
Notes: An Av.-And.-Darg. isogloss. It is not quite clear, whether we should also add a Nakh parallel: PN *s[o] 'here, towards here' (Bacb. so '(towards) here', siwħĕ 'here, to this side'; Chech. sħa '(towards) here', sħa- 'a preverb denoting motion towards the speaker', Ing. ħa- ( < *sħa-) id.).
Notes: The opposition of *ʒ́ĭ 'self' (1-2 cl., animated) : *čŭ 'self' (3-4th cl., unanimated) is well preserved in PL. Most other languages have preserved only one of these roots.
The development *č- > c- in Lak. is irregular (typical for pronominal morphemes, cf. *čwi 'who, what' > Lak. cu-,ci-). It is unclear also, whether we should relate here PN *šā '(one)self' (Chech. šā, Ing. še, Bacb. ša-jrwa) - phonetically absolutely irregular [perhaps it should be rather compared with PL *šä- 'demonstr. pronoun, that']. The semantics of the PAT subject version is well explained if we assume its origin from a pronoun; the phonetic side is quite satisfactory.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. As an independent pronoun this root probably served for the direct base of the inanimate pronoun 'what'; it also served as the root of the derived PEC *čw[ĕ]-mV 'how much' and in some other derived interrogative pronouns.
Notes: One of the most reliable and stable common NC lexemes. The PWC form has a prefixed *ma- of somewhat obscure origin; the labialisation of *c̣ʷ must be explained either by the labialising influence of *m- or by the former oblique base vocalism *-ŭ- (suggested by PL obl. base *c̣ojɨ- / *c̣a(j)-rV-). See Trubetzkoy 1930, 276; Abdokov 1983, 98.
Many languages reflect an old oblique base formed with the *-rV suffix (*c̣aj-rV-), cf. PN *c̣ari-, PA *c̣ari- (reflected in Akhv. č̣ari), Lak. *c̣ara-, PL *c̣a(j)-rV-. The same stem with reduplication is probably reflected in PL *c̣arc̣ar 'luster, glitter' (Tab., Lezg. c̣arc̣ar) exactly corresponding to PAT *cǝrǝcǝrǝ 'to glitter' (Abkh. a-cǝrcǝr-ra, Abaz. cǝrcǝr-ra) (with the same loss of glottalisation and absence of labialisation as in *mǝca 'fire').
Another old derivate of the same root is probably PNC *c̣aj-lV 'brilliance, lightning' reflected in PN *stēla (~*sṭ-) ( > Chech. stēla-ʕad 'rainbow', stēla-χäštig 'lightning', /Usl./ stēla 'thunder', Ing. sela-ʕad 'rainbow'), Lak. c̣aj 'brilliance, glitter', PD *c̣ala (Ak. c̣ala 'sparkle', Chir. c̣ala-laIm 'lightning') and PAK *c̣ǝ-wǝ- (with a verbal stem *-wǝ-) 'to shine, glitter' (Ad. Bzhed. c̣ǝ-wǝ-, Kab. c̣ǝ-wǝ-). Note that *-j, having passed to word-medial position in PN, has caused the shift *c̣- > *st- (*sṭ-); note also the absence of labialisation in PAK *c̣ (without the prefixed *mV-).
Notes: Despite some metatheses (possibly variants *c̣īwV / *c̣ūjV can be reconstructed), the WC-EC comparison seems quite likely for both phonetic and semantic reasons. See Dumézil 1933, 50, Abdokov 1983, 133.
Notes: The WC form has a frequent labial prefix (which conditioned loss of labialisation *pǝzʷV > *pǝzV). The EC-WC comparison was suggested by Shagirov (1977). There exist also interesting Kartvelian parallels: cf. Kartv. *ʒ̥1̇u- 'female, bitch' (compared with Lak. in Klimov 1963); Chan. bozo 'girl' (cf. PAK *bzǝ), Svan. zural 'woman' (see Lomtatidze 1961). Untenable is Trubetzkoy's (1930) comparison of the WC root with Darg. gʷaza, Lak. k:ʷac:a etc. 'mare'.
In Nakh languages, besides *psṭuw, there is a series of similar forms: Chech. stē 'woman; female' (pl. steš, Usl. stij), stē-n 'female', Akk. sēwã 'female', Ing. se id., pl. istij ( = Chech. stij) 'women, wives'. There are two possible solutions: to consider these forms as derived from *psṭuw (from the oblique base *psṭawV-), or to compare them separately with an isolated Darg. form - Chir. cade 'female' (reconstructing PEC *cVjdV (~ ć-)). This problem can not be definitely resolved without Bacbi evidence.