Notes: Reconstructed for PEC. In PC *-ü- is a frequent substitute for *-ɨ- ( < *ē) in labialised surroundings. In PL there occurred a regular development: *bHēmƛ_ɨ̆ > *beImƛ > *meInƛ > *meIrƛ.
Notes: Reconstructed for PEC. Some problems are raised by *m- in PL (Tab.): possibly, Tab. marχIli-n is a modification of *marχIni-n < PL *marχIVn ? In this case the *m- could be a result of nasal assimilation (cf. the PA form *biχumV with a nasal suffix).
Notes: In most subgroups the word could be borrowed from Arabic baṭṭ 'duck' (since there are, of course, no domestic waterfowl in most modern NC communities); however, some phonetic peculiarities (especially nasalisation in Tsez.) make us think of the possibility of PEC reconstruction. Besides Arabic the word is known also in Georgian (baṭi 'goose'), where it may well be borrowed (either from Nakh or also from Semitic). The problem requires a further investigation.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are regular (although the root is not very widely spread).
[There are also many similar - but absolutely irregular - forms for "vagina": Bezht. (Tlad.) puce, Khosh. puci, Gunz. pusi, Lak. miš, Tab. (Düb.) bic̣i, Kand. puš, Ag. biš, Lezg. Khl. pɨš, Rut. pɨc, Tsakh. pɨc, Kryz. pišṭi.]
Notes: The root is well attested in WC, but has left only faint traces in EC languages (Chech. and Darg., both only in compounds). Still the NC reconstruction seems rather probable, and EC languages have probably lost the root because the particular beast of pray (jackal?), denoted by the root in PNC, was not spread in the mountains of East Caucasus.
It is interesting to note similar words in other languages of the East: cf. Sum. pirig 'lion', Old Indian vyāghrá- 'tiger' (whence Arm. vagr) etc.
Notes: Reconstructed for PEC. The Lak. form has a peculiar meaning (probably *'barley straw' > *'straw of leguminous plants' > 'dry leaves of leguminous plants').
Notes: Correspondences are quite regular. Other Caucasian languages have borrowed this root: cf. Georg. dial. boq̇wi 'pilaster' (from Abkh.), Balk. bǝq:ǝ 'a small post' (from Kab.), see Shagirov 1977,2,47.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The medial nasal accounts for nasalization (*b- > m-) in PC, PL and Khin. After denasalization it has regularly passed into non-nasal -r-. Note, however, what has been said above about the PL form (a possible merger of two different roots there). [NB: the final version of the MSU recordings has mɨrs in Khin. If this - not the earlier mɨrc - is right, then the Khin. form should be considered as a loan from Shakhdagh.]
Notes: In several languages there is a variation between m- and n-; n- is obviously secondary before the front vowel. Otherwise the correspondences are regular.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Correspondences are quite regular (only the PL *wäwƛ̣: requires a special explanation: it is probably a result of assimilation < *wärƛ̣).
See Trubetzkoy 1922, 241. Abdokov (1983, 74) tries to relate here some WC forms: Ub. La 'intestine' (which belongs rather to WC *Ĺǝ 'meat, flesh') and PAK *(b)La- 'chain' (in Kab. La-rǝ-ps, Ad. bLa-rǝ-ps 'chain') - which reflects rather the PAK verbal root *bLa- 'to thread on a string, to plait'.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. Most languages have suffixed forms either with original plural formants (PL *-or, perhaps also Khin. -äš; PC *-l- - note that in PGB a second plural formant *-ba has been added) or with less clear elements (PA *-tu, *-jiƛ:u). Correspondences are quite regular.
Notes: A common NC onomatopoeic root; its expressive character explains irregular variation between *bĭnʒĕ and *mĭʒĕ. Cf. also in other Caucasian languages: Georg. buzi 'fly', Svan. buzūl 'wasp, fly', Megr. bazi 'a big fly', PK *bzu- 'to buzz' (see Charaya 1912, 19, Klimov 1965, 51). An obvious NC (probably WC) loan is Osset. bɨnʒ / binʒä 'fly' (see Abayev 1958, 280 with dubious etymological attempts). Comparison of PWC and Nakh see in Mészáros 1934, 227, Dumézil 1963, 15; Abdokov (1983, 113) adds also some Lezg. data.
Notes: An expressive and, possibly, onomatopoeic root; therefore, the PEC antiquity is dubious. Phonetically, p- (instead of b-) in PN should be ascribed to assimilation.
Notes: An interesting Lak.-Av. isogloss. Precise meaning is hard to reconstruct, but the root probably denoted some kind of moral or supernatural experience: cf. also likely parallels in HU: Hurr. piʒ-, Urart. pic̣- 'to be glad, rejoice' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 17).
Notes: The comparison belongs to Trubetzkoy 1930, 277 (who, however, had mistaken Agul for Andi; there is no such word in Andi). See also Abdokov 1983, 74. The root is clearly expressive, and its presence in only one EC language (other EC forms cited by Abdokov can not belong here) makes the etymology highly unreliable.
