Notes: The comparison is satisfactory both phonetically (although - becauseof insufficience of data - the vocalic reconstruction is rather tentative) and semantically.
Notes: Except for the metathesis in Tab. (which is not an unfrequent phenomenon), correspondences are quite regular. However, the Tab. form is isolated within Lezghian and quoted from Khaidakov 1973, which makes the comparison with PA much less reliable.
Notes: A Darg-Lezg. isogloss. The word has a certain resemblance to Pers. čap 'left', and could be considered as an Iranian loanword (although the phonetic and morphologic side of this hypothesis raises several objections), if not for an obvious HU parallel: Hurr. šapχalǝ 'left' (see Diakonoff-Starostin 1986, 54), which makes the PEC reconstruction much more reliable.
Notes: An expressive root, spread in the Eastern Dagestan area. It should be probably kept apart from a synonymous *c_ifV (q.v.), but the two roots could have influenced each other (in particular, tense č:- in Lak. may be due to such a contamination); another source of influence can be seen in PEC *čHaχV 'to be wet, flow' (q.v.). We should also mention the common Darg. name for 'urine': Ak. žiħ, Kad. žeħ, Kharb., Tsud. č:eħ < PD *č:eħ (or *č:eχI), which resembles the Lak. form in having a tense *č:-.
Notes: Except Lak. čiṭu (which may be a loan from Darg.), all other forms seem to be genuine and the root is worth reconstructing for PNC - although, of course, one must take into account numerous irregularities typical for names of birds and small animals.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. A very complicated case. It is probable that the word is a PEC compound, and it is possible to decipher PEC *jĕrƛ̣_wV 'belt, leather strap' in its second part. The first part, in that case, can be reconstructed approximately as *čɦVm(V)-, but it is difficult to identify this morpheme with any independent EC root. The original polyconsonantal structure *čɦVm-jĕrƛ̣_wV, having an expressive meaning ("whip"), naturally underwent very complicated and irregular changes in most daughter-languages.
Notes: Reconstructed for the PEC level. The Darg. form may be borrowed (e.g. from Old Lak before the shift a > u); this would explain the irregular *χ: in PD. Certainly borrowed (from Av.) is Arch. čerχ 'body'.
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: An expressive root with highly irregular transformations; nevertheless, because of the rather good Tsez.-Lezghian match, the PEC antiquity is probable.
