Revisiting The Classification Of Caucasian Languages According To Basic Vocabulary

Abstract

The authors compare the basic vocabulary of the North Caucasian, Kartvelian and Indo-European languages from the 35 word-list of S.E. Yakhontov, which is a reduced sample from Swadesh word-list. Several critical remarks were made about the composition of this list and the strict requirements for the identity of the semantics of the compared words. During the process of comparison, it is recommended to take the main word used in the language to express a particular meaning, but this is not always possible, since many words have synonyms and it is often difficult to choose the “main” one from them. In such cases, a researcher is forced to take two or more synonyms and this immediately increases the number of actually compared words in the list. The authors studied more than 50 words in this article instead of 35. As a result of the analysis, it was established that in the list of S.E. Yakhontov there are 7 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Kartvelian languages, 8 correspondences between the Abkhaz-Adyg and Kartvelian languages, 13 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Abkhaz-Adyg languages, more than 50 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages ​​(including synonyms). According to this data, the authors conclude that all the studied languages, despite Starostin and his followers, are related to each other, and the closest relationship exists between the East Caucasian (or Nakh-Dagestan) and Indo-European languages.

Keywords: Swadesh word-list, Yakhontov word-list, Caucasian and Indo-European languages

Introduction

Nowadays the use of Swadesh 100-word list in order to establish the genetic links of languages is a common practice. Using this list, it is possible to make far-reaching conclusions about the degree of kinship and the time of separation of certain languages estimated in tens of thousands of years. Thus, due to the ideas of macrocomparativists, the North Caucasian languages ​​became related to the Chinese language, as well as the Yeniseian languages, the Basque, the Sumerian, the Burushaski languages ​​and the languages ​​of the Na-Dene Indians, etc. The family of these languages ​​is called the Sino-Caucasian and there is in no connection even with the Nostratic family of languages, which, along with Indo-European, Ural-Altaic, Afrasian and Dravidian, oddly enough, includes the Kartvelian languages, which until recently were considered related to the North Caucasian languages.

Problem Statement

According to S.A. Starostin (2007), experience shows that in order to establish the presence or absence of genetic relationship between languages, it is possible to use only a small number of basic vocabulary, for example, S.E. Yakhontov word-list, consisting of the following words:

It is supposed that all related languages at the level of 5–7 thousand-year divergence have more than 20 coinciding words within this 35-word list, and this has been verified for Indo-European, Altai, Uralic, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian and other languages, the relationship of which is “traditionally considered proven” (?). However, there are some doubts about the verification, because the preroots which they restored and their similarity in the compared languages provoke criticism of many researchers (Abdullaev, 1993; Xalidov, 2018).

Research Questions

The subject of the article is the basic vocabulary of the North Caucasian languages from the 35 word list of S.E. Yakhontov, compiled on the basis of Swadesh word-list.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the research is to reveal the number of correspondences in the basic vocabulary of the North Caucasian, Kartvelian and Indo-European languages as part of Yakhontov word-list.

Research Methods

The authors used comparative-historical and comparative-typological research methods. As an illustration, let us give the example of the comparison of words with the semantics 'heart' in the East Caucasian languages.

Ch. duog < Nakh *dag ~ Avar rak’ (Bezht. jak’o) < *dak’ ~ Darg. urk’i < uk’ // ruk’ ~ Lak dak’ ~ Lezg. rik’.

Proto-Nakh-Dagestanian root for the heart is reconstructed as *dag ‘heart, core, middle’, wich is confirmed dargva dialect data, wich are still preserved ‘middle, waist’ (Comrie, 2010; Temerbulatova, 2012) with gender marks. Etimon ‘middle, core’ for the heart is also present in Russian; Geo., Kab. ‘heart’ ~ ‘bullock cart (< ‘chariot’)’, Ch. ‘cicle’; Ubykh gә ‘heart; middle’ (NCED). Compare against this background the proposed for the heart in NCED (1994) PNC an archetype *jěrk’wi ‘heart’, that we have questions about: 1) on what basis was it restored in anlaut consonant j, when the vast majority of Nakh-Dagestanian languages we have d or r? 2) what are the reasons for chooseing root vowel ě, while data from most languages indicates middletonguewich in WC languages it is regularly converted to, and not vice versa? 3) what is the logic of restoring the sonor, when it is known, that the ND languages are characterized by its incertion, and not by its loss? (cf. ‘wulf’ > Lak, ‘moon’ > , ‘daughter’ >, ‘wind’ ~ LakLezg. ‘tooth’ > таб.-юж., Lak ‘tooth’ < *ккаччи, ср. Lak ‘dog’ < ‘large-toothed, biting’).

Findings

As a result of the analysis, it was found that in Yakhontov word-list there are 7 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Kartvelian languages, 8 correspondences between the Abkhaz-Adyg and Kartvelian languages, 13 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, more than 50 correspondences between the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages ​​(including synonyms). In accordance with these data, the authors come to the conclusion that all the studied languages are related to each other, and that the East Caucasian and Indo-European languages ​​are most closely related. According to the opinion of N. Trubetskoy (1930) the morphological characteristics of the Right East Caucasian are similar to the Proto-Indo-European. We suppose that in this article, the etymons were established for many Indo-European words for the first time.

1) Ch. пхьа ‘blood, blood feud’ ~ Avar би ‘кровь’ ~ Darg. хIи < *пхIи ~ Lak оь < *хIoь < *пхIеу (?) ~ Lezg. ви, Tab. фи, Udin. ппи.

[2) Nakh ghaur-: Chechen ghuoruon ‘to freeze’, ghuoruor ‘freezing’, ghura ‘frozen ground’. Orginal meaning for ‘blood’ was ‘crud, coagulating (liquid)’ ~ PIE *kreu- ‘raw flesh’: OGreek kryos ‘сильный мороз’, L cruor ‘blood’, crudus ‘bloody, raw’, Skrt. kruras id., Av. χru ‘piece of blood’s meat’, Soghd. ghwrnw ‘bloody’, χrura- ‘bloody’, ON hrar ‘row’, Rus., Lat. kreve ‘scab’, kruveši ‘замерзшая грязь’, Lith kraujas ‘blood’ ~ PIE *- // *- // *- ‘freezing’ (Pokorny, 1959; Fasmer, 1967). Cf. also E. ‘coagulating blood’.

Arno Furie thinks, that Nakh *corresponds to PIE *- ‘blood’. Однако, PIE *: Hittite, L. *aser (> assyr), Greek. *esar, Skrt. asŗk-, Lat. asins, Tokh. yasar ‘blood’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984), Afg. ‘frost’ corresponds to PEC * ‘frost’: Ch. jis ‘frost’, gen. esar-an, pl. esarš, dial. asireš, God. asa ‘frost’, asar ‘dew’, Bud. isang ‘frost’, PLezg. *is / *jis snow, WC *sy ‘snow’, from wich Germ. *is ‘ice’, Avest. isu ‘icy’ inceparable.

[Nakh. *ban, *buon ‘to break’: Chechen buon, boina ~ Germ. baina, OE ban, E bone. Unattested, cf Chechen daak ‘bone’ ~ daa ‘to cut’, Rus. kost` ‘bone’ ~ ‘to cut’]

: In this meaning S. Starostin (2007) reconstructed for WC root =iwλĔ (Ch. =al-, Lak =ič’a-, Darg. -ebk’-, q’i-, Khin. k’-), which is hardly convinsing. PN root *- ‘die’ (Ch. v-alan, Ing. vala, Tush. v-alan) exactly match Luv. wala- ‘to die’, Old Icelandic- ‘the slain in battle’’, OE ‘slaughter, carnage, field of battle’, ‘to torment, to afflict’, OHG‘battlefield’, Lith. ‘the soul of a dead person’, ‘devil’, Tokharian A ‘to die’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984), PIE *- ‘die’.

In PWC the root this value is restored as *λV- (Adyg. λa-, Kab. λa-). Ubykh. dәwa-, originally 'stiffen' resembles Ch. daj’a, dial. devan, Tush. divan ‘kill’, corresponding to Greek deio ‘mortify’, Slav. dawiti, Luzh. dajis, OIce deyja ‘die’, AS doian – id., Goth. divan, PIE *- ‘disappear, vanish; kill’ (Vagapov, 2011).

– PIE *dheu-, *dhuei- ‘disappeare, die: Slav *daviti, Germ. *daujan ~ Nakh *dien ‘kill’, *dajan ‘kill’: Chechen die ‘kill’, pl. daja, dava ‘kill’;

– PIE *mrto- ‘dead’: Skrt. mrta, L mortuus, Lith. mirti ‘to die’ ~ Nakh *mard > muord // mörd-ig ‘hard film, dead tissue’], muortdala ‘grow numb’.

4. DOG ?

: Ch. lerg ‘ear’, Ing. lerg, Tush. lark’. Formed with diminutive suff. -ig from stem la- ‘ear’, with an espander -r-, cf. ‘listen’, literally ‘prick up your ear’. Ch. is closer Darg. lihi ‘ear’, Hurrite lele ‘ear’ (reduplication?). It is also interesting to note the consonance with Basque in be-larri ‘ear’, as well as Ubykh. ‘hare’ < ‘ear’. For typology cf. Ch. ‘hare’ from ‘ear’, Rus. ‘hare’.

[‘hear’ (Chechen khaza, Ing. khaza, Bats. khac’a ‘ear, understand’ ~ PIE *- ‘hear; ear’: Goth. hausjan ‘hear’, OHG. hоren < *xozen (G. hören), OE. hierаn < *hiezan, Germ. *xauzjan [AHD 1523; Pok. keu- 587]; Skrt. ghosa ‘son, noise’, Av. gaoša ‘ear, hear’, OPers. gauša ‘ear’, Osset. qūs / ghos ‘ear’, qūsyn / ighōsun ‘hear’ (Abayev, 1989). Cf Hurrit. xaz- ‘hear’, Urartu. xas- ‘hear, listen’ (Desheriev, 1963).

: [Nakh *ha’u ‘egg’: Chechen ho’a ‘egg; bullet; forage’, Tush. ‘grain’ ~ PIE *auei- / *owyo-: Germ. *ajja(m) in OE ag, egg ‘cockney, kidney’, ON egg, L ovum, Gr. oion, Afg. hoya ‘seed, egg’, Pers. xaia, Iran. *aia, L. ovum, Greek ώon, Slav. *aje (Pokorny, 1959).

: Ch.(<) is diminutive form from of‘eye’. Avar ‘eye’, ‘wheel’ does not correspond to the Ch.‘eye’, contrary to some authors, but to another word ‘propeller, turbine, mill wheel’. Typologically compare Geo. ‘eye’, ‘wheel’ (Megr.-Chan.) – Ch. ‘shuttle’; And. ‘eye’ – Ch. dial. ‘chariot’.

~ Nakh *aga ‘look, see’ > Ch. ħažan // ħiežan ‘to see, look’, ħaga //. ħiega ‘envy’; Bagv., Tind. ‘eye’. ~ PIE *- // *- // * ‘fire, burn’: OE eage, OFr. age ‘eye’, E. eye. The sound offen palatalized and moves in, that is observed in Botl. (< *) ‘eye’, Godob (< *-), Cham. (< *), Bezht. (< *), E. еye < OE eage.

~ Nakh. ‘light; eyesight’, gen. ~ Alb. si ‘eye’ < PIE. *- // *‘light, shine’.

PC * ‘fire’ (Ch. dial.‘stove’, Akhv.‘fire’ < *, Lak‘hot’), Nakh *c’e, *c’ar- ‘fire’ ~ Avar, Bezh., Kar., Bud., Rut.‘fire’, Agul. gen.Geo.‘burn’ – PIE * ‘hot coal, fire’: Alb. zjarm ‘heat’, Rus. ‘burning coal’,,,, Lith gareti ‘burn’. Cf. also Rus..

** ‘fire’: Ch. qe ‘fire, hearth’, qa ‘alkaline solution’ (< ashes), Ing. qa, Tush. qea‘hearth’ ~ PCez. Bezht. qo, Gunz. qo ‘a smoke’ ~ PIE ** ‘burn’, * ‘heat’, ‘burn’, Luv. ki ‘brazier’, Greek kaio ‘set fire to’ (Makovsky, 2004).

: Proto-Nostratic * ‘fish’: PIE * ‘fish’; Proto-Semitic: Hebrew ‘fish’, ‘fish’ (Bomhard, 1994), Sanskrit ‘body’ ~ PN. * ‘body’, ‘elm’, * ‘body, trunk’: Chechen, pl. ‘body, trunk’ (Vagapov, 2011), Lezg. ghed ‘fish’ (Comrie, 2010), Tab., Cakh. Χad ‘fish’ (Klimov, 1964). Cf. also Pokorny: * ‘fish’.

PIE ** ‘fish’ (L. piscis, Goth. fisks, OE. fisc, Ir. iask, Gael. iasg (< *piasg), вероятно, восходит к Ch. ‘oar; fin, flipper, spatula (for stirring)’, dial., pl., Ing. ‘oar; лаптá (игра)’. Formed fr. *- // *- with dimin. suff'. - // -. Hence for ‘fish’ reconstruct etymon ‘splashing, moving with fins'. Cf. for semantic Osset. ‘fish’, literally ‘swashing in water’.

Ch. ħuldan ‘hide, conceal; plunge into smth.’, Ing. ħulde. In the first part we selected stem ħul- (< *pħul-), wich brings together Megr. pul ‘hide’, Chan. mpul- - id., Geo. pal 'bury, sink', PIE *‘full’: Goth. fulls, Slav. *polnъ. In the second part – verb d-an ‘do’. For semantic development cf. PIE *pel- ‘fill’ > *pel- ‘hide, cover’ (Makovsky, 2007); Ch. ‘fill’ > ‘sink, plunge into; sey (of sun)’. Cf. also Goth. huljan ‘wrap up, cover’ at Ch. ħuljan ‘to hide, plunge’.

ПН *d-alan ‘give’ (Ch.-Ing., Tush.), iter. – Dag.: Lak, Gwinukh., Inkh., Khwar., Tsez. ‘give’ (Comrie, 2010). Given the transition (cf. Ch. – Ing. ‘short’, Ch. – Ch.-Ing. ‘to fall’), can be linked to Mundzh. dāl- : ley- ‘give’, dālam ‘we give’, Osset. daddyn : lævard ‘give’ (cf. Ch. ‘gives’ <, ‘if you give’), Arm. tal ‘give’, Pers. dadan, Skrt. da, PIE *-, *- ‘give’ (Abayev, 1959).

PN * ‘willow twig, branch, arm, right hand’, * ‘right’: Ch.‘willow’, ‘good’ (< * ‘right hand, good hand’), Tush. ‘goat willow’, ‘good’; Darg., dikala ‘wing’, duka ‘right’ (Vagapov 2011) ~ PIE *- / *- ‘right hand; to take’, E. dial. ‘hand’, Greek dekomai ‘to take, to acsept, to receive’; L. doceo ‘to teach, to instruct’ (Pokorny, 1959). Hence PIE *‘ten’: Greek; L., Old Irish (Pokorny, 1959). Semantic development from *- ‘right hand’ to ‘and right hand, also right hand’ (= ‘five finger of left hand plus five finger of right hand’) > ‘ten’.

PN. * ‘elbow (as measure of length)’: Chechen, gen., pl., Ing. duol, Tush.. (Vagapov, 2011). Cf. also: Dargin ‘forearm; right’,‘рукав’, Dargva dial. ‘shoulder, forearm’, ‘elbow’, Avar. ‘upper arm’, Tsakh. ‘near by, close to’ (< ‘под рукой’). ~ PIE *dal‘elbow, lengthen’: Sanskrit ‘long, tall, deep’, Greek dolixos ‘long’; Hittite ‘long’, ‘length’, Old Church Slavic ‘long’ (Pokorny, 1959), Rus. ‘length’,,, Proto-Slavic * ‘hand, palm’ от * ‘lowest part (arm)’, E. ‘a doll’ (< ‘hand, arm’), cf. dial. ‘arm’ (Makovsky, 2004).

PN ‘arm’ ~ PIE *: Osset. fars ‘side’, Kurd. pirasu, Avest. parsva ‘rib, border’, Khotan-Sak. pharṣa ‘judge, inquiring, interrogator’, Prus. aparsam ‘I asked’, Kurm. p'ars ‘begging’, pьrs ‘question’, Rus.,. Ch. pħars ‘arm’ allows setting etymon PIE * ‘ask’ as ‘extending a hand (in request)’.

[Nakh *kar ‘horn (of deer); high hairstyle’ > Ch. kur, pl karraš; kura ‘proud’ ~ PIE *kar-: Hittite, Luv. kar ‘deer’s horn’, Greek kar ‘head’, Slav. *korva ‘cow’, Germ. *χurn- ‘horn’ (OE, OHG, ON. horn). Cf. also OE. hær, OHG. hār, ON. hár ‘hair’ < Germ. *χar- < *kar.] ~ Avar. ‘hair; чуб; summit’, ‘top’, Lak ‘lock’, Darg. ‘plait’, dial. ‘mane’, Gunz., Bezht. ‘hair’ (Temerbulatova, 2012). Ultimately, this also includes Rus.‘cock’ < ‘crest’‘blond, white-haired’.

.: PN *, erg. ‘I’: Ch. suo, as; Ing. az, Tush.) ~ Adyg., Abaz.-, Dag. *ez- // *zo ‘I’ ~ хурр4то-урарт. *es (Urart. iese ‘I’). The root is widely represented in IE languages: Balt. *еs (OPrus. es, Lith aš, ст.-Lith еš, Lat. es), OSlav. azъ ‘I’, ORus. dial., Bolg. dial. es, Serbo-Croat., Arm. es ‘I’, Iran. *az-, Osset. æz ‘I’ (ЭССЯ, I, 100; Abayev, 1989), OPers.. iais ‘я’, Thrac. аs, Tokh. A yas, Tokh. B yes ‘I’.

(kennen) [PIE *gen- ‘to know’ (Pokorny, 1959): Goth. kann ‘I know’, Skrt. janati ‘he know’, Lith žinoti, Sl *znati (Fasmer, 1967) ~ Nakh *gan ‘to see’, gina ‘sow’ (‘to know’ < ‘to see’, known = seen’).

(wissen) [PIE *weid-, *woid-, *wid- ‘to see’: ORus videti, Pol. vidziec, Lith. veizdi, veizd ‘look!’, L. video, visum, Greek eidon ‘sow’, OHG wizzan ‘know’, Goth. weitan ‘to see’, Av. vista ‘well-known’ (Fasmer, 1964) ~ Nakh *waudzan, *weudzan ‘to know’: Chechen wouza ‘to know’, woiza ‘I know’, wieza ‘to like, love’ (‘to see’ > ‘to know’, ‘to like’) ~ PD *ac`a: Rut. h-ac`a-s, Tsakh. ac`a-xes, Kryz. -ac`-az`, Bud.-, And. ‘know’, Cham. -ac`-na ‘see’. Dagestanian (And.., Rut., Tsakh.) forms N.S. Trubetskoy (1930) compares with Ubykh-, Adyg.‘know’, wich are closer to Abkh. ‘learn’ (Shagirov, 1977), Geo. uc’q’ ‘know’.

PN * ‘know’ (Ch. хаъа1,‘to feel’, Ing. ха, Tush.,) does not have similar roots in Caucasian languages. Here, we compare Greek koeo ‘I feel’ < *koueo, L. caveo, cavere ‘beveare of’, AS. hawian, OHG. scouwon ‘look’, OSlav. ‘feel, hear’, Polab. caja ‘I feel’, Slav. *čujo, *čuti ‘smell, feel, know, hear’, Skrt. kavi- ‘claievoyant, wizard, poet’, Avest. čэviši ‘I know’, PIE *- ‘smell, feel’ (Fasmer, 1973).

We see that the consept ‘know’ (< ‘see’) has common roots in Caucasion and IE languages.

‘louse’ (Ing., Tush.) ~ And., Akhv., Cham., Arch., Avar, Lak, Darg. (Khaidakov 1973), Udin.). Naturally goes back to the root *‘little insect’, also presented in compounds‘little, tiny’ <(cf. Inkh. mic’ik’i, Ud. mic’ik’), ‘ring-finger’ (< ‘little finger’), Itum. dial. and further related Tsez. ‘little finger’, Cham., Tindy, Bagv. ‘little’, Botl., Cham., Bagv., Tindy. ‘child, baby’,‘finger’, Abaz.; Adyg. ‘little’), also OCzekh. ‘ring-finger’, Rus. ‘little finger, younger son, younder brother’, Lith, Lat. ‘little’ (Fasmer, 1967). Cf. semantically Gunz. ‘little lice’ ~ ‘light’ (< ‘small’), ‘small’, Ch. ‘small’; Slav. *vašь // *vоšь ‘louse; younger brother’ ~ Nakh * // *‘brother’ (Vagapov, 2019).

The stem has a Nostratic level: Proto-Nostratic‘young, child’ (Bomhard, Kerns, 1994):

~ Proto-Nord-Caucasian ‘small, little’: Chechenin-‘ring-finger’ < (little) and (finger), Cez. ‘little finger’, Tab. ‘little finger’, Cham., Tindy, Bagv. ‘little’, Botl., Cham., Bagv., Tindy ‘child, baby’,‘finger’, Abaz. Adyg. ‘little’ (Vagapov, 2011).

~ Proto-Кartvelian *mak’e- ‘heavy’ (< ‘pregnant’), *mak’en- ‘grow heavy’: Geo. mak’e- ‘cow with calf, sheep with lamb, in foal’; mak’en- ‘be (come) pregnant’ (Klimov, 1964) ~ PIE- ‘young’, * ‘young person, child’ ~ Proto-Dravidian ‘young person, child’.

German *lus ‘louse’ (OE lūs) have also the etymological meaning as ‘little insect’, from PIE *- // *- ‘small, tiny’, related to Nakh *lust ‘small sheep droppings’, ‘trifle’ (Ch. ‘frequent’, ‘sheep droppings’, Ing.), Osset. list-æg ‘small, fractional’; Rus. ‘slice of bread’, ‘peel, pilling’, Ukr., Bel. ‘a slice, a thin layer’, Lith lustas ‘a slice of bread’ (Fasmer, 1967). Inner form Nakh *lust – ‘small sheep droppings’, in contrast Ch. quo ‘large litter’ (< PN *qau) = PIE. * // *- ‘larrge litter, mullein’ > ‘a large horned animal, cow’.

PN *batt (Ch. butt, obl. batt-) ~ Khvarsh., Tsez., Tindy, Cham., Avar, dial., Darg. Kubachy, pl.(Trubetskoy, 1987; Comrie, 2010). Ib is interesting to note a certain similarity PNC *bund // *mund ‘moon, month’ (> *bunt > butt) с G. Mond ‘moon’, Dan. maned ‘month’, E. moon, French. monde ‘world; planetes’, L. mundus ‘world, universe; hevenly body’.

PK *du(š)te- moon: Georgian twe-, Megr. tute, Chan (m)tuta, Svan došdul, došt’ul. From *dust < *d-utt = Nakh *b-utt moon, month. Related to Georgian tetr- ‘white’, Svan. twetwene (cf. Georgian- moon) ~ Nakh *d-aticf. also PK *t’ut’a ashes: Megr. t’ut’a, Svan t’әt’a, dәt’ (Klimov, 1964) ~ Nakh b-atta / d-atta ‘bacen’;

[PIE *mons / *mens- > *mes- / *mas: Skrt. mas, masa- ‘month, moon’, Av. ma, masca, Arm. amis, Pers. mah ‘moon’, Greek Ion. meis (*mens), Greek. Dor. mēs ‘moon, month’, Cimr. mis, L. mensis (Fasmer, 1967; Gamkrelidze, 1984). ~ In view of the fact that the Moon was thought of as a measute of time (this is what is said in the Qur’an) a connection with Nakh * ‘haw much?’: Chechen, Ing..

PNobliq. has reliable matches in Kab., Adyg., Ubych., Cham. Lak, Udin., Khin. Darg., AvarAnd.., Tab., Tsez.‘имя’ (Trubetskoy, 1930), Udin. < < *, Arch., Lezg. (< *). Apparently, it is connected with omonymous Ch. ‘fire’, cp. Turk ‘fire’ ~ ‘name’. There are no correspondences found in Kartvelian and IE languages.

PN *- ‘new, young, virginal; clean, pure, renew’ (> Ch. c’ani > c’ena, Tush.) ~ Dag. * ‘new’: Cham., Darg.LakLezg., Rut. (Comrie, 2010), Avar ‘new’ ~ Adyg., Abkh. ‘new, young’ ~ Megr. č’e ‘a few’ ~ PIE *- ‘new, young’: Greek kainos ‘new’, L. re-cens ‘fresh, new, young’, Avest. kaini ‘unmared young women’, Skrt. kaninas ‘young’, kana ‘girl’, MIr.. con ‘clean, pure’, Ir. cinim ‘I arise’, Rus.,-,-- (Gamkrelidze, 1984).

PN * ‘a new son-in-low, new married’: Ch. nuc, gen. neuc-an / nouc-an, nauc, pl. naucarij) ~ Dag.- ‘son-in-low’: And., Bagv., Cham., Arch. nusdu, Darg. dial. nuca (Comrie, 2010). ~ PIE *- ‘new, beginner, youth’: L. novus ‘new, new married’, Lith. naujas ‘new’, Slav. *: Slovin. novc ‘a new person’, Rus. dial. ‘new man in the villige’, Serbo-Khroat. nὅvica ‘beginner’, novica ‘bride’, Sloven. ‘beginner, bride’, dial. ‘the groom’, ‘bride’ (Trubachev, 1999).

[Nakh *marэ ‘nose’, marš ‘snot’: Ch. marә, Ing. meraž, Gunz maru, Lezg. ner ~ PIE *mari ‘sea; pond; bog’, marisk ‘marsh’. Typologically cf. PIE *nos- ~ G. nass ‘damp, wet’, Ch noš- ‘growing soft; juicy’; Rus.]. This point requires further research.

PN ‘one’ (Ch. ca, dial. cħa, Ing., Tush. cħa) ~ PDag. *sa- (Avar, Darg., Lak ca-, Lezg.-) ~ Abkh.-Adyg. *zэ ‘one’ (Abaz.-, Adyg., Kab., Ubykh.) ~ Hurrito-Urart. *sа- ‘one’ ~ PIE *- ‘one’: Skrt. sa, sa-hasram ‘one thousend’, sa-krt ‘once’, Skrt. sa-pàtni- ж.р. ‘one of the wives’, OPers.. ha-mata ‘descended from the same mother’, Tokh. A sa-, Tokh. B se ‘one’.

Ch. ‘salt’, Ing., Tush.. From PN * (> Ch. >), perhaps, related to Lak dial. ‘dust’, Old Turkic ‘dust’, Finn. tuhu ‘snowstorm, sand’ > Rus. ‘snowstorm’ (Fasmer, 1973). Alternating x : s may be related to Turkic. ‘salt’, ‘dust’.

PIE * ‘salt’, L. sal, Greek hals, OSlav., Lat. sals, OIr. salann, Goth. salt. Related to OIc. hela ‘frost’, Du. hal ‘frozen ground’, Lith šaltas ‘cold’, šalna ‘frost(s)’, Lat. sals ‘frost’, Avest. sareta- ‘cold’ (Fasmer, 1973), Gypsy ‘cold’, Osset. sald ‘frozen’ from sælyn ‘freeze’, PIE *- ‘frozen; cold’ (Pokorny, 1959).

PIE *sal ‘salt’ corresponds, in our opinion, PN *šal ‘ice, crystal’, wich formed from ‘ice’ with suff. --, also represented in Nakh ‘tooth’ – ‘tooth, hoe’, Dag. * ‘tooth’ – * ‘tooth’ (Vagapov, 2011). The adjectives are usually formed from genitive nouns in Nakh languages, hence * ‘cold, crystalline’ > (cf. Tush.)Ch. ‘cold’. The connection between the value of ‘salt’ ~ ‘ice, crystal’ explained by the fact that natural salt is «a white crystalline substance», lsrge piece of wich resemble blocks of ice. Typologecally cf. Rus. Sibirian ‘a species of salt’, ‘sea salt’, ‘the crystallized’ (Fasmer, 1964) and Khakas ‘salt, extracted from under ice’, Turk. ‘ice’ (Anikin, 2000).

Ch. t’uo ‘gravel; stone, cobblestone’. Taking into account the form of genetive cases t'uon we bring closer to Armenian t'in ‘grape seed’, Goth. steins, E. stone, Greek stia, stion ‘flint’, proto-Slavic *stena ‘rock, stone, wall’. Phonetic development is naturally restored in the form: *t’an > t’uon > t’uo.

PN ‘камешек’. Derivative with diminutive suffix (- ‘щебень; камень’. Perhaps this also is related to Ch. t’uol ‘testiculus’ (< ‘small stone, acorn’), Hungar tölgy ‘oak’, Osset. tuldz // toldzæ ‘oak’ (< ‘acorn’), cf. Ch. ‘oak’ but pl. ‘oaks, acorns’, L. quercus ‘oak’ – Geo. q’uer ‘acorn’. Typologically compared to E. sleng rocks ‘testiculus’ at rock ‘скала, большой камень, валун’. It requires further research Geo. t’ali ‘flint’.

PN malχ ‘sun’ ~ P-And: Bagv.,, And.., Akhv.,, Kar., Godob. ‘sun’, ‘sunny slope, Cham. ‘sun, day’, Tindy ‘sun; sunny slope ') ~ PIE *(- ‘burn slowly, smolder ', Slav. *smal- ‘burn, freeze', Sloven. maleti ‘flare, burn ', Rus. ‘burn, roast, grill’. The material of ZK languages (Abkh., Abaz. ‘sun’) can be related to this only if transition is possible Abkh.-Abaz. >, as in Ch. dial.Darg. ‘sun’ и Ch. dial. Darg. ‘oil’ at Ch. ‘dairy butter’.

. I wander why the ‘tail’ was included in the number of 35 basic words?

.: PN * ‘this’, Ch. qu ‘this’, pl. erg. qa-ra ‘these’ ~ PIE ‘pronominal stem this', Hittite ki, kā ‘this’ (Dzhakuyan 1963); Hittite ‘this, that’, Greekin ‘that’, L in ‘give here’, in, Old Irish in ‘this world’, Gothic pronominal stem in, ‘come here!’ (Pokorny, 1959; Walde, 1927; Watkins, 1985).

PN * / * ‘this, that, it’: Chechen / ‘that‘, erg. pl.‘those’, Ing.. Oblique stem of demonstrative and personal pronoun ‘he, that’(= PIE ‘that’). Phonetic changes: * ‘этот, тот’ > * > (cf.‘. this’ < *). A sibilant represented in Akki dialect ‘here’, Bacbi ‘here’ but Chechen‘over there’, ‘in this place’.

~ PIE *- ‘demonstrative pronoun this, that, it’: Sanskrit‘that’, Greek, Gothic ‘that’, Old Icelandic ‘that’, OE. ‘that, one, he’, OHG ‘she’; Tocharian A- demonstrative pronoun (Pokorny, 1959; Walde, 1927; Watkins, 1985) ~ Proto-Afroasiaticdemonstrative pronoun; Proto-Ugrian *- ‘he, she, it’: Finnish (< *) ‘he, she’, Proto-Nostratic- ‘this, that’ (Bomhard, Kerns, 1994).

Nakh *‘it, this; that; he’ ~ PIE *‘it, this, he’ (Pokorn, 1959).

Nakh *‘this; he’ (Ch. iza, Ing. iz, Tush. is), Darg.‘this; he’, Akush., Khaidak, Tsudakh. ‘this; he’ ~ PIE *‘this, that; he’ (Pokorny, 1959): Lith jis, L. is, Goth. is, OHG. ir (< *iz < *is) ‘he’ < ‘this, тот’. Formed from ‘that; he’ with extender -z < *s, fonetically cf. also Ing. ‘I (erg.)’ (< Nakh: Ch., Tush.‘I’).

.: PN * (Ch., Ing., Tush.) ~ Avar, Lak, Darg., Lezg. ~ PIE * ‘mouth; jaw’: Alb. mat ‘estuary’, Goth. munths ‘mouth, chin’, OE., E. mouth, L. mentum ‘chin’, Cymr. mant ‘jaw’. PN *matt ‘tongue’ < ‘middle’. A variant without a nasal consonant is probably represented in PIE *- ‘word’ (Makovsky, 2004): Goth. mathljan ‘reden’, OE. madelian ‘reden, schprechen’, mathlian ‘speak’, Uells medd ‘he speaks, tells’; Zend. mathra (Makovsky, 2004), French. mot ‘word’, Gallo-Rom. *mottum (Oxford Eng. Etym. 302), Ital. moto ‘motto’, Rus. dial. ‘word’, ‘loud voice, cray’ (Makovsky, 2004), cf., Bel. ‘voice’. Note also Mary ‘word’.

.a) Ch. ‘the tooth of a horse’ (Ing.) has reliable correspondences in Caucasian (Dag. *- // *-, Avar, Abkh.-Adyg. *: Abkh.-, Abaz., Ubykh., Shaps., Abadz., Temirg., Kab.‘tooth’ (Trubetskoy, 1930; Balkarov, 1969; Shagirov, 1977) and Slavic languages: Slav. *ce ‘tooth’ in *ce-n-iti, *ce-r-iti ‘grin, bare one’s teeth’, *cenъ ‘farynx’.

b) PN cel ‘hoe’ (< *cel ‘jaw’ < ce ‘tooth’ + -l) ~ PD *sal / *sel ‘tooth’ ~ Gorg. cel ‘hoe’ < ‘sickle with teeth'. Cf. Ch. ‘hoe’, Ing., Tush. ‘hoe’. It is common practice to relate it Geo. ‘hoe’. However, in the light Nakh, Adyg., Dag. * ‘tooth’ (And.., Kar., Bagv., Cham., Darg., Khin. ‘tooth’), Lak ‘mow’ the word can be decomposed on the basis of Nakh-Dag. languages: ‘зубец, острие’ + suff. - (com. Ch., Tush. ‘strow’ at Geo. ‘trow’). For ideosemantics com. Nakh ‘hoe’ at > ‘tooth; jaw’, PIE * ‘tooth’; Ch. id. – Dag. * ‘hoe’. Consequently, Geo.- ‘hoe’ with And., Cham., Khvash. ‘hoe’, most likely come from the Nakh languages.

c) Proto-Nostratic * / * ‘to chew, to bite, to eat’: PIE. * ‘to chew, bite, crush’, ‘yooth, spike, nail’ (Bomhard, Kerns, 1994), Sanskrit‘to chew up, to recognize’, ‘tooth’, Greek ‘a gringer-tooth’, OE ‘comb’, Latvian ‘tooth’; Albanian ‘tooth’, Tokharian A, B ‘tooth’ (Pokorny, 1994; Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1984).

~ Proto-Afroasiatic / * ‘to chew, to bite, to eat’: Proto-Semitic *‘to chew, to bite, to eat, to grind’ > Arabic ‘to eat’, ‘wheat’, Hebrew ‘flour’ (Bomhard, Kerns, 1994).

~ Proto-Nakh. * / *: Chechen ‘letherworker in the form of wooden jaws’, ‘jaw, denture’, ‘tooth’, ‘tusk, fang’, Ing. (Vagapov, 2011).

PK *k’bil / *k’mil ‘tooth’ (Klimov, 1964) ~ PN * / *‘tooth, teeth, jaw’. If the original *k’bil, then in comparison with a metathesis Arab.kilab ‘dog’ < ‘toothed, biting'.

~ PN *dant / *datt ‘thorn, bone of fish, tree’ (Ch. ditt ‘blade’, ‘thorn, bone of fish, tree’, Ing. datt / ditt mulberry bush) ~ PIE *dent ‘tooth’: L. dent, Skrt. dant, OS tand, Goth tunthus, E. tooth, pl. teeth, OIr det (). For semantic cf. ‘knife blade’ (cf. каб. ‘knife blade’ < ‘knife’s’ + ‘tooth’), ‘fish bone; blade; tree’ (E. teeth), Turk. tut ‘mulberry bush’ ~ E. tooth, Ch. sallar ‘silkworm’ – Dag. *sal ‘tooth’.

~ Nakh *qali ‘big tooth’ (Ch qela) ~ PIE *kel- ‘to cut; big tooth’: Sl *kelu ‘canine, fang’.

Avar, Botl., And., Cham., Darg., Lakdial., Khin.. Dagestan in Chechen language naturally corresponds(Vagapov, 2019), that is why we use in comparison Ch. ‘little span’, Ing., which are probably related to Ch. ‘twig’ (> ‘fork’ > ‘span’), Kartv. *- ‘side, width’. To the typology cf. Ch. ‘big span’ ~ Nakh * ‘two, bifurcation’ (> Ch. ‘two’).

~ Here there is no phonetic relationship, contrary (NCED 924) Bezht.‘two’; Tsez., Arch., Bud.-, Kryz., Lezg., Rut.-, Tab.-, Tsakh.- ‘two’ (Comrie, 599) < Dag. * / * / *, relative to that of Nakh / ‘twenty’ (, dial. , Ing., Tush.), Kab., Adyg., dial. Ubykh. ‘two’, Kartv. *- // *- ‘two, twins’ (Klimov, 1964).

In Indo-European languages, they undoubtedly correspond to:хетт. da ‘two’, dan ‘second’, L. duo, Skrt. duva, dva, Avest. dva, OIr. dau, dо, Ukr., PIE * // *- ‘two’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984). PN form – * // * ‘branch, bifurcation, two limbs’, ‘two dozen’,cf. Tush. t’aw ‘forked brunch’ (Comrie 411). Typologically compared to Semit.-Hamit. *gawt ‘pair, two’ – Egipt. *gwt ‘twenty’ (Dolgopolsky, 1967).

Now we talk about the main word for the number two in the Nakh languages shi, oblique. shin, “which has no etymology in the NC languages” (Starostin, 2007).

Numeral ‘two’ (ind.) formed from Ch. ‘big span, step’ (dial., Ing., Tush. ‘span’ (Kadagidze, 1984), related to Abkh., Abaz. ‘foot’, ‘hoof’ (Shagirov, 1977), Lak ‘step; trace’, Avar, Bezht. (<< *), Darg.,, Rut.‘five’ (< ‘outspread five fingers, span’). For etimilogization Nakh ‘two’ (<) Ch. material, in particular is enough ‘double, even',‘doubled’, ‘second’ (<), ‘twice’ (<), ‘double pike’ (< šala-gaw ‘double branch’), ‘pitchfork’, ‘сук’. Indirect root, along with hurrito-urart.* ‘two’ (hurr., urart.е ‘two’), Hebrew šen ‘two’, in our opinion, is also inseparable from Bagv. sinu ‘fork’, Bezht. sino, Gunz. sinu ‘fork; pitchfork’, Tsakh. šana, Kryz. xiner ‘fork’ (if is from *siner // *šiner, cf. Ch. ‘tuesday’, ‘two year calf’). In Indo-European languages, SK is connected * ‘bifurcation, span, step’ with Osset. sak’ex ‘step’ < ša-k’ax ‘step of foot’ (Abayev, 1989), East Slav., Rus., Czekh. sah, Slovak. siaha ‘сяг’, Rus.

Nakh, despite (NCED, 1994), it is related not with Avar, And., Gunz., Arch., Lak, Darg., for which Arab. ‘water’, а с Adyg. ‘sea’, Avar, Guinukh., Beht. ‘river’, Geo. ‘mountain stream gorge'. On the basis of -- ‘go down’, - ‘bottom’ N. Yakovlev (Shagirov, 1977) explains Adyg. ‘sea’ as «down place», « the place where all rivers flow», which is confirmed by Nakh ‘lowest part, bottom, низ, подол’, pl., ‘go’, iter. ‘current’. Similar stems are also presented in Indo-European languages: Greek xeo ‘I pour’, Skrt. kha, Avest. ха ‘water, spring’, Khotanosak. khyeha < khāha ‘spring’, Yazgul.` ‘water, river’ (BFL, 1981). Examples towards a semantic typology is below.

PIE *- ‘water, dew, moisture’ (Greek ‘god of waters', Iran. danu ‘dew, moisture’) ~ PIE ** ‘lowland, bottom',Germ. *danja- // *danjo ‘valley, bottom, lowland ', Slav. *dъno,. *donja; E. down, Arab. dunja ‘bottom, lowland, lower reaches' > G. Dunav ‘Dunai’. It undoubtedly corresponds Nakh * ‘moisture’ (Ch. ‘moist, damp’ from gen.-, Tush. ‘dew, moisture’). PNakh dial.- // *- ‘moisture’ it exactly corresponds the root t’win- in Geo. t’win ‘morrow’, gan-t’win-wa ‘smash’ (Etymological dictionary of the Kartvelian languages, 1964) and Pra-Slavic. *dwin- in the name of Dvin River. Cf. also Geo. t’eni ‘moisture’.

PIE ***‘water’, *- ‘moisten, wet' (Rus., Greek hydor, hydros ‘. water’, Hittite. waatar, OS. watar) are inseparable from Ch. ‘squeeze out, dehydrate '', ‘squeezing’, iter. ‘squeeze, squeeze out’, ‘squeezing out '. Compared to semantics Ch. ‘squeeze out> dry out', iter. ‘drip, ooze, flow ', ‘oozing, dripping '. Indo-European roots with -r, most likely reflect the Nakh Masdar forms of the type //, as well as Rus. – Ch.-, Rus.- //- ‘see, look’ – Ch. ‘look, inspect ' (Vagapov, 2011).

PIE **‘watter, rain’ (Afg. owre ‘cloud’, Avest. awra-, Skrt. abhra ‘rain’, Greek ‘watter, spring’ в an-auros ‘waterless (about streams) ',Rus.,, Lith wirti ‘boil (up), seethe’) неотделимы от Nakh ‘rapid flow, rain or spring streams’, Ch. pl., Avar ‘river’ (Vagapov, 2011). Further, this may also include Geo. ghwari > Tush. ghor ‘rain flow’.

Thus, in the Nakh (allegedly related to Chinese) and Kartvelian languages (“related” bypassing the North Caucasian languages to the Indo-European), the following correspondences for liquid were identified:1. ‘water, river’ – ‘canion’, 2. Ch. ‘dripping water, oozing water’ –- ‘water’; 3. ‘moisture’ – Geo. t’win ‘brain’, gan-t’win-wa ‘smash’, t’eni ‘moisture’; 4. ‘stream’ – ghwari ‘rain flow’.

Ch. hun (Ing., Tush.), has correspondences in German (OE. hu, E. how, OS. hwo, OHG. wuo ‘how’; OE. hwa, ME. hwo, hоo, OSw. ho ‘who’) and some Dagestan languages, cf. Tab. ‘what’.

Ch. ‘somebody, someone’, Tush. ‘sombody’ (Kadagidze 1984). Formed with suff. - from stem * ‘who; somebody’ (cf. Tush. ‘who’), corresponding, in our opinion to PIE * ‘man, “Typologically, the nominal meaning‘person ’and the pronominal indefinitely personal ‘one of the people, someone (one)’ receive an identical formal embodiment” (V. Martynov), cf. Ch. ‘somebody’, literally ‘one man’, Gunz. ‘who; man’, ‘to someone’. This also includes PIE *- // *- ‘sombody, some, (an)other’, Goth. manags ‘many’ (< ‘any’), OHG. manag, menig ‘иной, some’, G. manch ‘(an)other’, ODan. menech, OE. manig`, Wels. mynych, OIr. menice ‘numerous’, OSl. ‘many’.

. PN *мах (Ing., Ch.erg.) ~ PAnd. * (> * > *) ~ PLak * (> * >) ~ PUdin. * (>).

Since alternation х: ш in Nakh-Dagestan, and in other languages, is well known, we have a regular correspondence Nakh * ‘wind’ ~ Dag. * ‘wind’, which corresponds to PIE *max (*maš) mas ‘wineskin; мех, ash-pit’: Slav. *mexъ (Rus.; Lith maĩšas ‘bag’, màiss – id., OPrus. moasis 'bellows’) (Fasmer, 1973). Dargin variants / /‘wind’ (Temerbulatova, 2012), probably corresponds to Nakh ‘twist, swing, spin’, ‘breathe’, ‘breath, vapor’, ‘to seat breathlessly’. Semantically cf. OSl. ‘breath, whiff’, ‘breathe, blow’ (Shansky, 1973).

In ZK languages we have Abkh.-Abaz.// ‘wind’, Adyg. // ‘swell out’, -// ‘blow’ (Shagirov, 1977), corresponding to Ch. ‘peditum’.

PK *- ‘wind’ S.A. Starostin (2007) considers it to be isolated and inconsistent in the North Caucasian languages. However, if we take into account that for primitive man no less relevant than natural winds were such winds asKartv. can be related to Nakh *i ‘stomach, belly’ // * (Ch., Ing.), Akhv., Botl. (< *) ‘stomach’. It is known that the furs were made from wineskins, thus our comparison of the Caucasian forms with PIE *‘cut; belly’: Slav. *: Rus., Bolg. dial. ‘intestine’, Prus. ‘stomach’ ().

Ch. ‘(fresh) air, breath, wind' (Ing.), Lak haw ‘cold wind’, Akhv. λwē (NCED, 1994), Cham. dial. hä ‘air’ (Komrie, 2010) ~ Adyg. wa ‘sky’ < (? ‘атмосфера, air’) ~ ПИЕ *-, *-, * ‘air, wind; веять’: Zaza vā, Afg. wō, Iškaš. wuy ‘wind’, Rus. (in). The Indo-European forms с - // - Osset. wad(æ), Pers. wad, Kush. oado ‘wind god’, Iran. *vatа- (Abayev, 1989), probably, correspond, как as in many different cases, nakh forms with expansion -:‘wind (is)’;

In our opinion, the choice for the "basic" 35 word-list of the word, instead of the expected word - as rain is more important for the life of humans and animals than wind is explained by the adjustment of Yakhontov word-list to PIE languages, which have a common root for wind but not for rain. The same can be said about the words.

PN *šaw ‘year’ (Ch., Ing., Tush.) from *šaw ‘yea rtree ring ' (Vagapov, 2011). It can be related to Ubykh. šwa ‘year’ (Klimov, 1964), Abkh.-Abaz.in ‘year’ (Shagirov, 1977). Indirect basis of nakh word šar- ‘year ring, ring’, ‘year’ can be compared to Iran. *sard, Avest. sarэd, class.-Pers.. sal (cf. Urart. šalэ, Hurrite sawal), Manikh. sar ‘year’, as well as etymologically theme Rus.. Based on these data, instead of PNC *swani ‘year’, we restore the root *ša-w // *ša-r, genitive of which šar-in forms an adjective with the semantics' annual ', further changing in the direction of' a year ago '> last year'> 'old (harvest, offspring, etc.)'. Phonetically: šar-in > šerin > širin > širan > šira ‘old’.

Avar, And.., Botl., Kar. ‘year’ < *dešin / *desin < *das, Lak (< *dešin), Darg.ArchLezg., Rut., Udin. ~ PN * ‘timber, boasrds’: Ch. duos, but gen. desаn from das-in, duos-buχ ‘firewood cutting site.

Geo. c’eli ‘year, weist’, dzweli ‘old’ – Ch. c’ul-dečig ‘a species of tree’, Avar c’ul ‘wood, timber’, Akhv. č’uli ‘stick’, Abkh.-Abaz. c’la- ‘tree’ (Vagapov, 2011).

PK *za ‘year’: zäj, zäw ‘year’ (Klimov, 1964), Gorge dzweli ‘old’ – Ch. gul ‘tree, ridge’, Ing. ga ‘tree’, Ch. ga ‘twig’.

Rus. < ‘*main, best time of the year, middle of year’ – Nakh ghad ‘stem, trunk; figure’, Dag. *- ‘tree, trunk; time; day’: Avar ‘tree’, Bezht. ‘linden tree’, Udin. ‘tree’, Tsez., Ginukh., Udin. ‘day’, Lak, Lezg. ‘summer’; Adyg. * ‘time, season; year’, Kab. ‘year, summer’, Abaz. ‘time’ (Trubetskoy, 1930; Shagirov, 1977). It also includes PIE * ‘tie tightly, fit ', ‘tree, trunk’: Skrt. gadh-, gadhya ‘hold tight’, Germ. *Gad ‘connect, fir, fit tightly’, Fr. gadia ‘unite’ (Fasmer, 1964; Pokorny, 1959).

PN *tħuo ‘thou’ (Ch.-Ing. tħuo, Tush. ħuo) together with Dag. (Darg., Rutul, Tsakh. Udin. hun, Dag. *‘тthou’) mappings may be mapped (at least at that level, as do macrocomparativists) with PIE *thu ‘thou’: Khotan-Sak. thu, Iškašim. toh, Afg. tэ, Avest. tu, tvam, Goth. thu, Rus.. Cf. phonetically Ch. ‘we’ – erg. < *.

Conclusion

As a result of the research, it is possible to state that the conclusion of S.A. Starostin (2007) on the belonging of the North Caucasian and South Caucasian (Kartvelian) languages to different macrofamilies is not confirmed by our studies: both groups of languages are genetically related to each other and belong to the Nostratic family. In this family, the Nakh-Dagestan languages show a special relation to the Indo-European languages rather than Kartvelian ones.

References

  • Abayev, I.J. (1989). Istoriko-etymologicheskiy slovar osetinskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

  • Anikin, A.E. (2000). Etymological Dictionary of Russian dialects of Siberia.

  • Bomhard, A.R., Kerns, J.C. (1994). The Nostratic Macrofamily. A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Comrie, B., Xalilov, M. (2010). Slovar jazykov i dialektov narodov Severnogo Kavkaza. Leipzig; Makhachkala: Max Planck Inst. for Evolutionary Anthropol.

  • Kadagidze, D., Kadagidze, N. (1984). Cova-Toushian-Georgian-Russian Dictionary. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

  • Klimov, G.A. (1964). The Etymology Dictionary of Kartvelian Language. Moscow: Izd-vo Akad. Sci. USSR.

  • Makovsky, М.М. (2004). The Etymology Dictionary of the German Language. Moscow: Izd-vo Azbukovnik.

  • Pokorny, J. (1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke Verlag.

  • Starostin, S.A (2007). Problemy geneticheskogo rodstva i klassifikacii kavkazskix jazykov s tochki zrenija bazisnoi leksiki. Trudy po jazykoznaniju. Moscow.

  • Temerbulatova, S. (2012). Otraslevoi slovar darginskogo jazyka. Makhachkala.

  • Trubachev, O.N. (1999). Etymological Dictionary of Slavic languages. Moscow.

  • Vagapov, A.D. (2011). The Etymology Dictionary of Chechen Language. Tbilisi: Meridiani.

  • Vagapov, A.D., Makhaev, M.R., Ovkhadov, M.R. (2019). To the Project of the Methodology of Integral Linguistic Analysis. The Europ. Proc. of Soc. & Behavioural Sci. EpSBS, LXXVI, 3265–3274.

  • Walde, A. (1927). Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin: Valter de Gruyter.

  • Watkins, C. (1985). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

  • Xalidov, A.I. (2018). Jazyki i narody Kavkaza. Tbilisi: Izd-vo Universal.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

17 May 2021

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-106-5

Publisher

European Publisher

Volume

107

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-2896

Subjects

Science, philosophy, academic community, scientific progress, education, methodology of science, academic communication

Cite this article as:

Vagapov, A. D., Navrazova, K. B., Ovhadov, M. R., & Abdulvakhabova, L. B. (2021). Revisiting The Classification Of Caucasian Languages According To Basic Vocabulary. In D. K. Bataev, S. A. Gapurov, A. D. Osmaev, V. K. Akaev, L. M. Idigova, M. R. Ovhadov, A. R. Salgiriev, & M. M. Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Knowledge, Man and Civilization, vol 107. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 2609-2622). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.349