The Tower of Babel

Sergei Starostin's Home Page

Russian
<< Home Page << Articles and Books

    INTRODUCTION
 
 
    A description of the comparative phonology
    of the North Caucasian languages.
 
 

    The family of North Caucasian languages is a distinct white spot on the linguistic map of the Old World. Despite the presence of a number of quite valuable works (starting with those of N. S. Trubetskoy [Trubetskoy 1922, 1926, 1929, 1930, 1931], then - Y. A. Bokarev, [Bokarev 1961, 1981], T. Gudava [Gudava 1964, 1979], B. Gigineyshvili [Gigineyshvili 1977], A. Kuipers [Kuipers 1963, 1975] and others), we can certainly state that up to the present there is no common notion of the original phonologic structure of Proto-North-Caucasian. This is the result of several factors (not the least of which is the extreme complexity of phonetic and phonological systems of the regarded languages), but the main reason seems to be the lack of any ancient written tradition of the North Caucasian languages. Until recently the matter was aggravated by insufficient description of phonetic, morphological and lexical systems of many North Caucasian languages, but now this gap may be considered virtually filled (thanks to the active work of researchers during the last twenty years, and mainly to the systematic field research of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics of the Moscow University under the guidance of A. Y. Kibrik and S. V. Kodzasov who kindly provided the authors of this work with the expedition materials concerning a number of little known languages (published later as [Kibrik-Kodzasov 1988, 1990]).
    The absence of ancient languages - a natural resource for reconstruction - can be compensated for in two ways. The first method is to choose a number of modern languages as the basis for reconstructing the protolanguage of the whole family; the data from other languages are included in the already discovered rows of correspondences afterwards. This method is certainly accurate at the first stage of research, and is therefore used in the works of N. S. Trubetskoy, Y. A. Bokarev and B. Gigineyshvili. But more preferable - especially if the languages of the family are well studied - would be another method; namely, the reconstruction (as full and adequate as possible) of several intermediate protolanguages and, only afterwards, of the initial system. Here intermediate protolanguages stand for the missing old languages; besides, since in this case the data of all the languages are considered, the reconstructed state of the language will inevitably be more trustworthy than in the first case - assuming that one uses correct methods of reconstruction.
    This work uses the following intermediate reconstructions:
    1) Proto-West-Caucasian (PWC). The proper West Caucasian reconstruction is based on the reconstruction of two intermediate protolanguages: Proto-Abkhaz-Tapant (PAT) and Proto-Adyghe-Kabardian (PAK), with due regard for the data of the third branch of the West Caucasian languages, Ubykh. The reconstruction of PWC that is used in this work was completed by S. A. Starostin on the basis of his own reconstruction of PAT (with account of available works, those of K. V. Lomtatidze [Lomtatidze 1944, 1964, 1976] in particular), and of A. Kuipers' reconstruction of PAK (see [Kuipers 1963]).
    2) Proto-Nakh (PN). The reconstruction of the PN phonologic system has been done by S. L. Nikolaev, with account of the work of D. Imnayshvili [Imnayshvili 1977].
    3) Proto-Andian (PA). While reconstructing the PA system we based our work completely upon the excellent reconstruction of Proto-Andian consonantism, completed by T. Gudava [Gudava 1964]. Single corrections and the reconstruction of PA vocalism were made by S. L. Nikolaev.
    4) Proto-Tsezian (PTs). The reconstruction of the PTs phonologic system was completed by S. L. Nikolaev and was based on the reconstruction of two intermediate protolanguages: the Proto-Tsezian-Khvarshi (PTsKh) and the Proto-Gunzib-Bezhta (PGB), also done by S. L. Nikolaev. The author only partly used the correspondences of Y. A. Bokarev's classic work [Bokarev 1959], and his reconstruction seriously differs from the PTs reconstruction suggested in the posthumous edition of the work of T. Gudava [Gudava 1979].
    5) Proto-Dargwa (PD). The initial reconstruction of the Proto-Dargwa system was done by M. Epshtein on the basis of field materials, collected and prepared by I. O. Olovyannikova during the Caucasian expeditions of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics of the Moscow University. This work uses this reconstruction (with some corrections by S. L. Nikolaev).
    6) Proto-Lezghian (PL). The reconstruction of the Proto-Lezghian system has been completely done by S. A. Starostin. Its main issues and differences from the later published reconstruction of B. B. Talibov [Talibov 1980] are related below (see pp. 122-179); see also [Alekseyev 1985].
    7) Proto-East-Caucasian (PEC). The reconstruction of the PEC phonologic system has been accomplished jointly by the authors of this work on the basis of comparison of the above mentioned protolanguages and also of three modern languages - Lak, Avar and Khinalug - that are taxonomically outside the listed genetic units. Some aspects of the PEC reconstruction resemble or coincide with the results of the reconstructions of N. S. Trubetskoy, E. A. Bokarev and B. K. Gigineyshvili, but the number of differences surpasses the number of resemblances (not mentioning the fact that quite a lot of aspects, such as the reconstruction of vocalism or of the laryngeal system, are not regarded at all by the authors named above).

    While comparing the reconstructed PEC and PWC systems it became clear that the second system can be almost completely deduced from the first (see below for some exceptions from this rule). Thus the finally obtained Proto-North-Caucasian (PNC) phonologic system virtually coincides with the PEC, at least on today's level of our knowledge. Therefore, for practical purposes, we shall operate below with the WC languages as if they were part of the East Caucasian family (though this is surely wrong from a taxonomic point of view). Already after the authors completed the PNC reconstruction, there appeared new evidence for the fact that the Hatti and the Hurro-Urartian languages, localised in ancient Asia Minor, are related to the North Caucasian language family (see the works [Ardzinba 1979, Ivanov 1985, Diakonoff-Starostin 1986]). However, we do not use their evidence in this work: because of its fragmentation they still do not offer much for the PNC reconstruction.
    Of course, the detailed account of the reconstruction of all intermediate protolanguages mentioned above could not fit within the limits of one book (the manuscript of the PL reconstruction alone takes about 500 typewritten pages). Within the limits of this work we plan to give only the tables of phonetic correspondences with a minimum of necessary commentary.

    1. Phonetic tables.

    1.1. From PNC to the intermediate (proto)languages.

    Below we will inspect the reflexes of the PNC phonemes in PEC (and further in PN, Avar, PA, PTs, Lak, PD, Khinalugh and PL) and in PWC. The data of Avar, Lak and Khinalugh are given in their modern shape (for Proto-Avar and Proto-Lak it would also be possible to give the forms, reconstructed on the basis of modern dialects, but the dialects of Avar and Lak respectively form very compact genetic unities, and such a reconstruction would not be very informative).

    1.1.1. Consonantism

    For PNC the following system of consonants is reconstructed:
 

Voiceless occlusives Voiced occlusives Glottalized occlusives Voiceless fricatives Voiced fricatives Resonants Nasal resonants Glides
Labials p b © f w m uH
Dentals t d ® r n j
Hissing c ½ ˆ s z
Hushing ¾ Š « ¼
Palatal (hissing-hushing) ½´ ˆ´
Lateral œ ž l, š
Velar k g x
Uvular q G ª »
Laryngeals h
Emphatic laryngeals
 

    Two more very rare voiced fricatives are reconstructed for PEC (lateral L and velar ‘), as well as the supposedly interdental fricatives ± and ±:. These phonemes have no correspondences in PWC, and their existence in PNC is dubious. In fact, it is possible phonologically to treat *w, *r and *l as voiced fricatives, and *uÍ, *j, *š respectively - as resonants (thus avoiding the reconstruction of glides altogether).
    The typical features of the PNC consonantism were:
    a) the ability of all consonants except the labials and resonants to be combined with the following resonant w. We do not regard these combinations on the PNC level as labialized phonemes; this would lead to postulating too many (a typologically unlikely number) phonemes for PNC. However, since in some descendant languages the 'w' combinations develop specifically and, as a rule, are transformed into monophonemic sequences, it seems convenient to regard them in the tables together with simple phonemes.
    b) the presence in affricate series (hushing, hissing, palatal, lateral, as well as velar and uvular) of the so-called "geminates", which will be marked below by underlining respective phonemes (c_, ‰_´, g_, and so on). For these consonants on the PNC level the monophonemic treatment is also inconvenient (for the same reason as for the labialized ones); moreover, there are reasons to suppose that the opposition of "geminated" and "nongeminated" consonants initially had a prosodic nature (see below). The PNC geminates will also be placed in the tables together with simple phonemes, because they regularly give monophonemic reflexes in descendendant languages.
    In the tables hyphens mark reflexes in different positions (C- in the beginning, -C- in the middle, -C in the end); the sign / divides motivatedly split reflexes (i. e. different reflexes of the same phoneme, whose appearance is caused by factors known and explained in the comments); the sign ¬ divides unmotivatedly split reflexes (i. e. different reflexes of the same phoneme, whose appearance is caused by factors yet unknown).

    1.1.2. Labial consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khi  PWC 
*p  *p  *p  *p  *p  *p  *p  *p/p: 
*b  *b  *b  *b  *b  b/p:  *b/p:  *b¬p:  b¬p:  *b/p: 
*©  *©  *b-¬p-,  *b  *b-,  ©  *©¬b  *©  ©-,b  *b-,-©- 
       *-©-¬-b-      -©-             /-p:- 
*f  *f  *“¬»  *xº¬h  x¬»  *»¬h  h¬»  *x:¬»:  *»:º  *xº 
              ¬»º 
*f_  *f_  *“¬p»  *«:  «:  *›:¬»:  x:º¬»:  *x  *›:º  px-  *f¬xº 
*uÍ  *v  *w  *w  *w  *w  *uÍ  w¬j  *w¬j 
*w  *w  *b  *b  *b  b-,w  *b  *w  w¬0  *w¬0 
*m  *m  *m  *m  *m  *m  *m  *m 

    Notes.
    In the labial series, as in all the others (except the laryngeals), we reconstruct a triple opposition "voiceless (lax)": "voiced (tense)" : "glottalized" in the subsystem of occlusives. In Lak, Dargwa and (judging by the available examples) Khinalugh the initial *b is represented by p: most often if there is no adjacent voiced or glottalized occlusive, and by b in other cases. The phoneme *b in PL is rather rare and represents *b only in expressive forms (in other cases *p:).
    The postulation of labial fricatives f and f_ for PNC and PEC causes much doubt for us, first of all because of rather unsystematic reflexes in descendant languages, where the unmotivated splitting of reflexes is often observed. However, the presence of some semantically quite trustworthy and widespread roots among the words with the regarded correspondences does not allow presently to consider these rows occasional and unessential. We may deal here with the result of phonologisation of some old positional distinctions in descendant languages, whose general principle is hard to determine because of the lack of material.
    The opposition *uÍ-*w is completely parallel to that of *j-*r (see below), though, unlike *j, the phoneme *uÍ is reconstructed only in pronominal and grammatical morphemes (for example, in the 2nd pers. sing. pronoun, see p. 1014-1015). It is, however, not quite clear in which row one should reconstruct *uÍ (a glide), and in which - *w (a resonant). We tentatively reconstruct *w for the more frequent phoneme (with w/b reflexes), and *uÍ - for the other row of correspondences (modern languages do not as a rule distinguish between /uÍ/ and /w/).
    In the above table we only list the reflexes of the resonants *w and *m in initial and medial positions without the combinations with other consonants; the behaviour of such combinations will be specially considered below (see pp. 62-72). But there is one more type of cases, namely the modification of initial *w, *m and *b under the influence of following syllable-final resonants *n, *m and *l. One may note that in nominal NC roots variations of initial m,w,n and b occur very frequently. These variations up to now were either not explained at all, or were explained by the interchange of "petrified" class markers. However, after serious examination, all of them can be reduced to a comparatively small number of rows of correspondences that agree well with the reconstruction of resonants in the medial consonant clusters (see below, pp. 62-72). The general system of correspondences looks like this:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khi  PWC 
*w(..n)  *m-  *m¬b-  m¬b-  *m¬b-  b-  *b-  *w-  w¬m-  *m¬0- 
*b(..n)  *b-  *m¬b-  m-  *m-  m-  *m-  *m-  m-  *b-¬m- 
*w(..m)  *b-  *b-  m-  *b-  b-  *b-  *w-  w-  *m-¬0- 
*b(..m)  *b-  *b-  m-  *b-  b-  *m-  *m-  m-  *b-¬m- 
*w(..l)  *b-  *m-  b-  *m¬b-  b-  *m-  *w-  w-  *b- 
*b(..l)  *b-  *m-  b-  *m¬b-  b-  *m-  *m-  m-  *b-¬m- 
*m(..n)  *n-  *m¬n-  m¬n-  *m-  m-  *m-  *m-  m-  *b-¬m- 

    It is also necessary to make some more particular remarks about the behaviour of labial consonants in separate languages:
    1) Lak regularly drops initial syllables with nasal m- (and also with b- < *w-) and subsequent narrow vowels i, u (about the similar process in Lezghian see below, page 127).
    2) PWC regularly splits the reflexes of PNC voiceless occlusives and affricates. The general rule of distribution is as follows: before short PNC vowels PWC preserves (with proper modifications) the initial opposition of laryngeal features (voicelessness, voice, glottalisation), but before long PNC vowels (on the reconstruction of long vowels see below, p. 72ff.) a special series of PWC tense (so-called "preruptive") consonants takes the place of initial voiced, voiceless and glottalized consonants.
    This special feature of the PWC reflexation seems to be connected with the general process of shifting the quality and quantity vowel features onto the preceding consonants that occurred in PWC (and led to an extraordinary expansion of the consonant system and to a corresponding extraordinary reduction of the vowel system in PWC). This process is best seen in the subsystem of affricates; in the explosive (labial and dental) series only the intensification of consonants mentioned above happens regularly; the shift of vowel quality features to consonants is regularly seen only in PWC monoconsonantic roots.
    3) Resonant consonants reconstructed for PNC can either be preserved or disappear in PWC, though the latter happens more often. The reasons for this process (that has not afflicted only the resonant *m, regularly preserved in PWC except in middle position in consonant combinations) are not quite clear yet. However, we think the suggestion of a secondary loss of resonants in PWC is more trustworthy than the alternative suggestion of a secondary appearance of different resonants (in the beginning and in the end of a root) in PEC. It is this circumstance (also considering the prevalence of roots with one obstruent and one or more resonant consonants in PNC; on the structure of the root see below) that has caused the prevalence of monoconsonantal roots in PWC. Among the consonants listed above, the process of the loss of resonants has also affected the resonant *w.
    4) Besides the processes listed above, we must also mention the denasalisation *m- >*b- that regularly happens in PWC before the following syllable-final liquid *r and *l.

    1.1.3. Dental consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*t  *t  *t  *t  *t  *t  *t  *t/*t: 
*d  *d  *d  *d  *d  t:¬d  *d-,t:  *t:¬*d  d¬t:  *d/*t: 
*®  *®  *®  *®  ®  *®  ®  *®  *®  ®  *®/*t: 

    Dental consonants in combination with w.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*tw  *tw  *t  *t(w)  *t(w)  *t  *t(w)  *t(w) 
*dw  *dw  *t  *d(w)  *d  t:-,d  *t:-,d  *t:(º)  *t(w)/ 
              ¬*d(w)      *t:(º) 
*®w  *®w  *®  *®(w)  ®  *®(w)  ®  *®  *®(w)  ®  *®(w)/ 
                    *t:(º) 

    Dental resonants and glides.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*j  *j  *j-,0  *€-,j  €-,0  *€-,0  €-,0  *€-,0  *j  €-,0  *j¬0 
*r  *r  *d-,r  *r  *r  *r  *d-,r  *j-,r  r/z  *r¬0 
*n  *n  *n  *n  *n  *n  *n  *n  *n¬0 

    Comments.

    1)The opposition of voiced and voiceless dentals is generally reliably reconstructed for PEC and PNC, though there are some untrivial moments in the development of voiced consonants in descendant languages (particularly the devoicing *dw > t in Nakh and in PWC).
    In Lak d is generally met in intervocal position as a reflex of *dw as well as in expressive and reduplicated roots; in other cases we have a normal reflex *d > t:. We must also note that many modern dialects have further changed -d- to -r-, and the variation -d-/-r- is frequently met in literary Lak.
    In PL the voiced reflex *d is also for the most part attested in expressive forms. On the development of *d in medial clusters see below.
    2) Some words in EC languages reveal a peculiar variation of t-type and s-type reflexes. The following correspondences are established: a) PN *-t-, Av., PA *-t-, Lak. -s-, PD *-s-, PL *-t-; b) PN *-t-, PA *H-, s:, Av. -€-, PT *s:-,-®-, Lak. -t:-, PD *H-,s, PL *€-, t:. In these series we may tentatively reconstruct interdental fricatives *± and *±_. Their PNC antiquity is dubious (first of all, because of the lack of WC parallels); some cases are probably loanwords in PEC.
    3) Concerning the behaviour of dentals (explosives and resonants) in PWC see comments 2 and 3 on page 43.
    4) It is necessary to make a few general notes on the behaviour of labialized consonants in descendant languages. Generally labialization is better preserved by back consonants (see below); as for front ones, they often reveal a tendency to delabialize. Delabialization is most often caused by position (vocalic environment), but cases with unmotivated delabialization are not unusual either. In this work it is not possible to go over the details of the behaviour of labialized consonants in individual languages, and we use the designation C(w) to indicate that labialization is generally preserved, but can disappear, depending on the position within the word. We must also say that among the NC subgroups labialization has completely disappeared only in PN (though having left some traces in a specific development of originally labialized consonants.)
    5) Initial resonants *j, *r and *n (just as the labials *w, *m, see above) modify their reflexes in different languages if following syllable-final resonants are present. The general system of correspondences in this case looks like this:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*j(..r)  *d-  *r-  r-  *r-  d-(¬€-)  *€-  *j-  €-  *0- 
*j(..n)  *j-  *€-  €-(-)  *€-    *€-  *j-  €-  *j-¬0- 
*j(..l)    *r-  r-  *€-  l-  *l-  *j-  €- 
*r(..n)  *d-  *r-  n-  *r-  n-  *n-  *j-  €-  *r- 
*j(..m)  *j-  *€-  €-  *€-¬j-  m-¬n-  *€-  *j-  €-  *j-¬0- 
*r(..m)  *d-  *r-  n-  *r-  n-  *d-  *j-  *0- 
*n(..m)  *m-  *n-  n-  *n-  n-  *n-  *n-  n-  *0- 

    It must be stated that roots with resonant combinations *r(..r), *n(..l), *r(..l), *n(..n) are not attested; in roots with the combination *n(..r) the initial *n- behaves normally (i. e. it is always preserved as n-). Roots with initial dental resonants are more rare than roots with initial labial resonants (this explains the lack of some types of combinations and also some gaps in reflexes).

    1.1.4. Hissing consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN   PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*c  *c  *c  *c  *s:  *c  *s-,c  *s(¬z)/*c: 
     (*Ntt) 
*½  *½  *½  *z  *s  s:¬c:,  *c:  *c:¬z  c:,Rz  *½¬z/*c: 
     (*Ntt)        Rz 
*ˆ  *ˆ  *ˆ  *ˆ  ˆ  *ˆ  ˆ  *ˆ  *ˆ  ˆ,-z  *ˆ¬z/*c: 
     (*N®®) 
*s  *s  *s  *s  *z(*z:)  *s  *s  s(-z?)  *s 
*z  *z  *s  *d  *d  t:  *d  *z  *s 

    Hissing consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*cw  *cw  *‰,R«  *s  *z  *s:-,  *s:(º)-,  ps-¬  *«º/c:º 
              s¬s:  s(º)  p«-,c: 
*½w  *½w  *d-,¾  *z  *s  *½  *c:º    *½º(¬zº) 
*ˆw  *ˆw  *®-,  *ˆ  ˆ  *ˆ  ˆ  *ˆ  *ˆ(º)  -z  *ˆ(º)¬*z(º)/ 
    Š,R«                *c:(º) 
*sw  *sw  *«  *s(º)  *z  s(º)  *s:  *s:(º)  *«(º)¬¼(º) 

    Hissing "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*c_  *c_  *c  *c:  c:  *s  s:¬c:  *c:  *c,Rc:  *c(¬z) 
                    /c: 
*c_w  *c_w  (*st)  *s:(º)  c:  *s:¹*s  s:  *s  *s:  *¼º 
*½_  *½_  *ˆ  *ˆ:  ˆ:  *c  ˆ  *z  *ˆ:  ˆ  *ˆ¬z 
    (*Ntt) 
*½_w  *½_w  *®-,Š  *ˆ:(º)  ˆ:(º)  *c(º)  ˆ  *z  *ˆ:º  ˆ  *ˆ(º) 
*ˆ_  *ˆ_  *ˆ  *ˆ:  ˆ:  *c¬ˆ  ˆ-¬c:-,  *ˆ,  *ˆ,Rc:  ˆ  *ˆ¬z 
    (Ntt)        ˆ,Rz  Rc: 
*ˆ_w  *ˆ_w  *t-(?),  *ˆ:(º)  ˆ:(º)  *c¬ˆ  ˆ(¬c:-)  *c:-,  *ˆ(º)  *ˆ(º) 
    Š,R«          ˆ  ¬z(º) 
*s_  *s_  *s  *s:  s:  *s:  s:  *s:  *s:  s(¬z?)  *s 
*s_w  *s_w  *«  *s:(º)  s:  *s:  s(º)  *s:  *s:(º)  *sº 

    Comments.
    1) Not all rows of correspondences listed above (and therefore the reconstructed protoforms) are established with equal reliability. For example, the voiced fricative *z is reconstructed only in the 1st person singular pronoun (however, this reconstruction seems valid to us because voiced fricatives of other series are reconstructed in some other pronominal roots as well). The combination *zw is not reconstructed at all for PNC; as for PEC, we can talk about the reconstruction of *zw only in onomatopoeic roots.
    However, in general the system of reconstructed phonemes and combinations suggested above seems to explain the present correspondences more adequately than the reconstructions suggested before (a five-affricate and three-fricative system of E. A. Bokarev or a five-affricate and two-fricative system of B. K. Gigineyshvili can not explain the whole variety of NC languages correspondences).
    Let us go over some details of reflexes of hissing sounds in separate subgroups.
    2) PN. In PN, as the table shows, hissing sounds are preserved as they are, but are transformed if a -w- follows. The disappearing labialization in this case transforms hissing sounds into hushing, while initial voiced and glottalized labialized affricates develop into dental explosives. We must state that in particular cases (e.g. if a labial resonant is present before the affricate) the delabialization could have occurred even before the described processes; in such cases PN has the reflexes of ordinary hissing sounds.
    Other processes were also active in PN that have seriously complicated the picture of the reflexation of hissing sounds. First, desaffrication ‰,Š > « occurred in medial combinations with preceding liquid resonants (it is significant that such desaffrication is absent in the hushing series, see below, and therefore occurred in PN even before the transformation of labialized hissing sounds). Second, geminated tt (®®) appeared in the place of different PEC hissing affricates in medial combinations with preceding nasal resonants (the nasals themselves disappear in this case). It must be stated that PN *tt (®®) cannot in principle be explained (as, e.g., by N.S.Trubetskoy, see [Trubetskoy 1930]) as a reflex of a single PEC (PNC) phoneme, because this PN cluster is simultaneously present in several rows of correspondences. PN reflects in the same way (as tt) the PEC geminates *ˆ_ and *½_ after the liquid *l; in these cases we must probably suggest a preliminary development *lC > *nC. A special feature of PN reflexation is the fact that the development *C > tt never happens if a -w- follows (in all these cases we have normal PN hushing reflexes).
    Most difficult to explain are cases of PN reflecting PEC hissing (and hissing-hushing, see below) affricates and fricatives as a *st (*s®) cluster (both in initial and non-initial positions), not included in the table above. The simplest solution would be the reconstruction of PEC combinations like *st, that were preserved in PN, but lost in other languages. However, this solution seems to be wrong - basically because of the fact that the *st (*s®) reflex is also observed in place of PEC fricatives.
    One may note that in all cases where we can reconstruct *j and a sibilant (not hushing) affricate or fricative within one root, PN has a *st (s®) reflex. Thus one can formulate a rule, according to which all hissing and hissing-hushing (but not hushing!) phonemes develop into *st-clusters in PN (probably as a result of distant palatalization) after or before a *j. In some cases we may therefore reconstruct medial clusters like *-jc- or *-js- on Nakh evidence alone.
    The second type of cases, where the development *C > *st(*s®) occurs, are the combinations of hissing affricates with the preceding resonant -l-, perhaps, also through the stage *lC > jC > st(s®). However, we know some cases in which original combinations like *lC preserve the liquid (as -r-) in PN. In general, this question needs further elaboration.
    One should finally note that there is no clear-cut distinction between *st and *s® in PN: the distinction is preserved only in Batsbi, and there is considerable variation between st and s® there, according to existing sources. We may suppose that originally the distinction between *st and *s® was as solid as that between *t and *®, but it was impaired already on the PN level.
    3) Andi-Avar-Tsezian languages. Here it is necessary to pay attention to the fricativization of labialized *cw and *c_w in PA (in this respect Andian languages differ seriously from Avar, and usually this difference is not regarded with due attention.) The other processes that have changed the subsystem of hissing consonants in Avar-Andian languages are quite simple (the development *½ > z , *c_ > c:; the merger of glottalized and voiced geminates in *ˆ:). In PTs there occurred a further deglottalization *ˆ: > *c:> c and fricativization of all non-glottalized affricates that led to an untrivial PTs system of fricative distinctions *s - *s: - *z - *z: (for their reflexes in individual languages see below, page 112).
    4) Lak, PD and PL. First of all we must note a positional development *ˆ_ > *c: (*½) in combinations with preceding medial resonants that is common for all three of these subgroups. The row of correspondences "PL *c: : PD *c: : Lak. z : Av., PA *ˆ:", usually serving as a basis for reconstructing PEC voiced *½ (see [Trubetskoy 1930, Bokarev 1961 et al.]), thus appears to be in complementary distribution with the row of correspondences "PL, PD, Lak *ˆ : Av., PA *ˆ:" (usually ignored). It must be emphasized that in our reconstruction we clearly distinguish the PEC (and PNC) phoneme *½ (that does not give glottalized reflexes) and the geminates *ˆ_ and *½_ that often give glottalized reflexes.
    It is worth noting that Khinalug, in its reflexation of PEC *ˆ_, is clearly connected with Western Daghestan languages (*ˆ_ is always reflected as ˆ, in post-resonant positions too), and not with Lezghian, to which it is often attributed.
    5) PWC. In the table we have listed PWC reflexes of PNC hissing phonemes before non-front PNC vowels. Before original front vowels PWC regularly reveals palatalized affricates and fricatives; this is the consequence of the basic rule active in PWC, concerning the shift of quantitative and qualitative vocalic features to preceding consonants. The quantitative aspect of this rule in PWC led to the appearance of a tense ("preruptive") *c: (*c:º) reflecting all PNC hissing affricates before originally long vowels. It is quite possible that hissing fricatives could also become tense (in the same position) in PWC; but within PWC the evidence for reconstructing the distinction *s - *s: is still missing (see below on the PWC reconstruction).
    One can also pay attention to the unmotivated variation of voice/voicelessness (and also glottalization) in some PWC reflexes. The reasons for a secondary voicing in PWC are not clear yet (it could be possibly connected with the fall of laryngeals in PWC).

    1.1.5. Hushing consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*‰  *‰  *‰  *‰  ‰  *‰  ‰  *‰  *‰  ‰  *‰¬¾ 
*¾  *¾  *¾  *¼  ¼  *¼-,‰,R¼  ¼¬‰:  *¼¬‰:  *‰:  ¼  *¼¬¾/‰: 
*Š  *Š  *Š  *Š  Š  *Š  Š  *Š  *Š  Š  *Š (¬‰) 
*«  *«  *«  *«  *¼  «  *«  *«    (*«) 
*¼  *¼    *«:  ¼    ¼    *¾  j/«  *« 

    Hushing consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*‰w  *‰w  *‰  *‰(º)  ‰  *‰  ‰(º)  *‰  *«(º)  p«-¬‰  *‰º/‰:º 
*¾w  *¾w  *¾  *¼  ¼  *¼:(º),  ‰:¬«:  *¼  *‰:(º)    *¼(º) 
          ‰,R¼(º) 
*Šw  *Šw  *«-,  *‰(º)  ‰(º)  *t(º)-,  Š  *Š  *Š(º)    *Š(º)¬ 
    Š      ‰(º)          ¾(º) 
*«w  *«w  *«  *«(º)  s/x  *¼¹¼:  «(º)  *«:  *«:(º)  «  *«(º) 

    Hushing "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*‰_  *‰_  *‰  *«:  «:  *«¹«:  «:¬‰:  *«:  *‰:¬«:  «(?) 
*‰_w  *‰_w  *‰  *‰(º)  ‰:  *«¹«:  «:¬‰:  *‰  *‰º    *‰(º) 
*¾_  *¾_  *Š  *Š:  Š:¬ˆ:  *‰  Š  *‰:  *Š:  ¼(?)  *¼ 
*¾_w  *¾_w    *Š:  Š:    Š    *‰:º 
*Š_  *Š_  *Š  *Š:  Š:  *‰¬Š  (R)¼    *Š,R‰:  Š 
*Š_w  *Š_w  *«  *ˆ:(º)  Š:(º)  *‰-  Š  *Š  *Šº    *Ь¾/‰:º 
      ¬Š: 
*«_  *«_  *«  *«:  «:  *«:  «:  *«:  *«:    *«/«: 
*«_w  *«_w  *«  *«:(º)  «:(º)  *«¹«:  «:  *«:¬«  *«(º)  «  *«(w) 

    Comments.

    1) Hushing phonemes are generally more rare than the hissing ones. Therefore here we observe somewhat more gaps in correspondences. The voiced fricative *¼ is reconstructed only for one root - the 1st pers. pl. excl. pronoun (see above on the reconstruction of *z in the 1st pers. sg. pronoun). The reconstruction of the PNC combination *¼w is also rather dubious.
    2) In PN the hushing sounds are generally reflected more uniformly than the hissing ones: in all cases hushing reflexes are present. We must note a specific reflex of the labialized *Šw (in initial position) and *Š_w as a hushing fricative *«. It is important that hushing sounds never yield the PN *tt or *st reflexes that are so typical for the system of hissing affricates and fricatives.
    3) In Andi-Avar we must notice a specific reflexation of the "geminate" ‰_ as a fricative *«:, as well as variations between reflexes *Š: and ˆ: in the place of PEC geminates *¾_ and *Š_. In Avar we also see the complementary distribution of s and x reflexes in the place of a common Avar-Andian lax fricative *«; x - in front of i, s in other cases (in details see [Starostin 1987, 448-450]).
    4) In PTs hushing fricatives are generally reflected in a manner similar to that of the hissing ones (see above); but the reflexation of affricates is quite different. The most serious difference is the lack of fricativization of the affricate *‰ (and, in some positions, *¾) that led to their merger with the reflexes of "geminates" *¾_ and *Š_. We must also note a very specific PTs reflex of the initial labialized *Šw > ®(º) (such a desaffrication is unusual for Daghestan languages).
    5) In Eastern Daghestan languages the reflexation of hushing sounds is generally similar to that of hissing ones (also as far as concerns the development of the glottalized "geminate" *Š_), though there are some minor differences (for example, in the subsystem of fricatives).
    6) The development of hushing consonants in PWC is typologically similar to their development in PTs (neither family has fricativized the affricate *‰, though the fricativization of the hissing *c is present). In other respects the development of hushing sounds in PWC is characterised by standard features (the appearance of palatalized hushing sounds before original front vowels, strenghthening before initially long vowels). As in other local series, there is a variation of voice/glottalization in reflexes of originally glottalized consonants, as well as (more rarely) of voice/voicelessness in the reflexes of initially voiceless (lax) consonants. It must be stated that PWC hushing consonants are more often subject to the process of secondary delabialization than consonants of other local series.
    In some cases we have an unexpected affricate reflex in PWC where PEC has fricatives. It is not to be excluded that this reflex must be explained by a fusion of a fricative with the dental derivational prefix *d-(*t-), that in PWC could probably be attached to nominal stems.

    1.1.6. Palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*c´  *c´  *c  *‰  ‰  *«:(¬-s:-)  ‰  *c  *‰  ‰  *‰/‰:(¬c:) 
*½´  *½´  *½(Ntt)  *¼  ¼  *¼:-,«  z-,«:¬‰:  *c:  *‰:(¬¼)  ‰:  *z 
*ˆ´  *ˆ´  *ˆ-,  *Š  Š  *ˆ/Š  Š  *ˆ  *Š  Š  *Ьˆ 
    ss,(Ntt) 
*s´  *s´  *s  *s¬«  s/x  *¼-,«¬s  «:  *«:-,  *s:-,«  s(?)  *s 
              s¬« 
*z´  *z´  *s  *z    *¼:  *½  *c:    *z 

    Palatal consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*c´w  *c´w  *c  *‰(º)  ‰(º)  *¼-,«:  ‰(º)  *s:  *«:º-,    *cº¬‰(º) 
                ‰(º) 
*½´w  *½´w  *½  *¼(º)  ¼  *«-¬«:-,«  *‰:  *‰:(º)  c:  *sº(?)/ 
                    ‰:(º) 
*ˆ´w  *ˆ´w  *ps-,  *Š(º)  Š(º)  *Š(º)  Š(º)  *ˆ¬Š  *Š(º)  ˆ,-z  *¾(º)¬ 
    ss¬ˆ                zº/c:º 
*s´w  *s´w  *ps-,s  *«(º)  s/x  *«  «  *s:  *s:  s(º)  *«º 
*z´w  *z´w  *«  *«:  ¼  *¼:    *¾º  z/s  *sº 

    Palatal "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*c´_  *c´_  *-c-  *c:  c:  *s:  s:  *c:  *‰  *‰(¬¾) 
    (¬-«-)  ¬‰:  ¬‰: 
*c_´w  *c_´w  *-c-  *«:  ‰:  *«:  «  *s:  *«:(º)    *½º 
*½_´  *½_´  *ˆ  *Š:  Š:  *‰  Š  *c:  *Š:  -c  *‘(?) 
    (Ntt)        (¬¼) 
*ˆ´_  *ˆ´_  *ˆ  *Š:  Š:  *‰  Š,Rz  *ˆ,  *Š,R‰:  Š  *Š (‰) 
    (Ntt)          Rc: 
*ˆ´_w  *ˆ´_w  *ˆ    Š:  *‰¬c  Š  *ˆ  *Šº¬ˆº  *ˆ(º) 
*s´_  *s´_  *-ss-  *«:  s:  *«:¬s:  «:  *«:  *«:  «(?)  *s 
*s´_w  *s´_w  *ps-,ss  *«:¬s:  «:  *«:  «(w)  *s:  *«º¬sº  p«(º)-  *«º/s:º 

    Comments.

    1) We have to reconstruct a third affricate series in PEC and PNC, because there is a great number of etymologies with correspondences that do not at all fit into one of the two usually postulated affricate series. A typical feature of the third series is the prevalence of hissing reflexes in PN and PD, while in other languages, as a rule, hushing reflexes are dominant.
    2) Palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants in PWC and PNC had approximately the same frequency as the hushing ones (see above). Therefore not all rows of correspondences are established with equal reliability. In particular, the combinations *½´w and *z´w are very rare (the last one is reconstructed only for the personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. pl.) The reconstruction of the voiced fricative *z´ is not quite reliable. Finally we must state a weak ability of palatal "geminates" to combine with labialization (only the combinations *c´_w and *ˆ´w are reconstructed quite reliably).
    3) As we noted above, in PN hissing reflexes are typical. Another thing in common with the hissing series is the appearance of the PN geminate tt (®®) in the place of various medial affricates (in the same positions as in the hissing series in combinations with preceding nasal resonants). Furthermore, in the place of PEC hissing phonemes as well as PEC palatal affricates and fricatives, a specific combination st(s®) can be developed (adjacent to an older *j or following the resonant *l, see above, page 47). Still, there are some differences in the palatal reflexation and the hissing reflexation; some phonemes (the glottalised *ˆ´ and the fricative *s´_) have a specific medial reflex *ss; labialized hissing and labialized palatal sounds have quite different reflexes in PN.
    4) In PA and in Avar, palatal reflexes in most cases have merged with hushing reflexes (only occasionally - in the case of some fricative phonemes and the affricate *c_´ - do we meet hissing reflexes; there is also a characteristic correspondence "PA *«: : Av. ‰:" as a reflex of PEC *c_´w, that, as far as the development of laryngeal features is concerned, is rather similar to the hissing series - cf. PEC *c_w > PA *s:, Av. c: - than to the hushing series). On the distribution of s and x reflexes in Avar see page 49.
    5) In PTs, in most cases, we also encounter hushing reflexes of PEC palatal sounds (though sporadic hissing reflexes here are more usual than in Avar-Andian languages). It is still hard to formulate the principles of the distribution of hissing and hushing reflexes in PTs (sometimes such variations are observed inside a single lexeme); we can only state the fact that in initial position PEC *ˆ´ > PTs *ˆ, but in other positions > PTs *Š. However, we must note that, while hushing reflexes in PTs are generally prevalent, the general development of palatals here is quite different from that of PEC hushing phonemes (cf. the fricativization *c´ > «:, *½´ > « with an analogical fricativization *c > s:, *½ > s, but *‰,*¾ > ‰ with the preservation of the affricate features).
    6) In Lak the reflexes of palatals generally merge with the reflexes of the hushing phonemes (see above). However, we must note a specific development of fricatives (more similar to the development of hissing than hushing fricatives), as well as the regular presence of the hissing z in all rows, where one could expect the hushing ¼ (as a reflex of PEC *½´, *z´, *½´w, *z´w, *ˆ´).
    7) Dargwa is strikingly different from all other Daghestan languages in its treatment of palatals; in most rows of correspondences (except only the fricatives *s´, *s_´ and affricates *½´w, *ˆ´w, where sporadic hushing reflexes are observed) Dargwa reveals hissing reflexes that bring it closer to Nakh languages. One can see that except some minor differences in development, PEC hissing and palatal affricates give the same reflexes in Dargwa.
    8) In PL palatals generally merge with hushing phonemes (though the fricatives and the labialized *c´w, *c_´w develop in a somewhat different way than the respective hushing consonants). As for Khinalug, we can observe there both hissing and hushing reflexes, but there are too few examples from this language to establish strict rules of reflexation.
    9) In PWC we can state a variation of hissing and hushing reflexes, whose distribution it is yet hard to establish. As regards the development of laryngeal and quality features, palatal sounds in PWC develop in a manner similar to other affricates and fricatives (see above). It must be emphasized that PNC palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants have no direct relation to modern hissing-hushing consonants, present in Adygh languages, in Ubykh and in some Abkhaz dialects (see below on their origin).

    1.1.7. Lateral consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*œ  *œ  *-l-¬  *œ  ›  *›:-,  x:¬x  (*h-),  *›-,  ‰-(?)  *›/›: 
    -r-        ›: 
*ž  *ž  *l-,  *l  *L:  k:  *g¬k:  *œ:  ‘  *L¬l 
    r(ž)        (¬l) 
*l-,  ®  ™  *™  ™  *¬ž 
    -ž-,-l,        (¬l) 
    (-R›-) 
*›  *›  *l  *›  ›  *›  *-x:-  *›:  *›/›: 
*š  *š  *l-  *l  *l  *l  *l  *l¬0 
    (¬-r-) 
*l  *l  *l  *r  *r     *l  *l  *l¬0 

    Lateral consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*œw  *œw  *l-¬k-,  *xº-,  x(º)  *-k-¬  k(º)  *k(º)  *›(º)    *œ 
    -»-  -k-    -›:-      (¬-œ(w)-) 
*žw  *žw  *l-,-g-  *kº  l-,  *k(º)  -k:(º)-  *-k:º-  *œ(º):    *L 
        -g- 
*w  *w  *™´  ®  ™(º)  *™(º)  *(º)  ™  *º¬ 
                    žw 
*›w  *›w  *f-,l»  *›(º)  ›  *›(º)  h¬x:(º)  *x:(º)  *›(º)    *›º/›:º 

    Lateral "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*œ_  *œ_  *-l»-,  *œ:  œ:  *›:  x:-,  *k:  *œ,    *œ¬ 
    (r)ž        -k:-(¬l)   rœ:    ž 
*œ_w  *œ_w  *k-,œ  *›:  œ:  *›:-  x-,  *x(w)  *›:(º)  k-  *œ(º) 
            -k:º-(¬l) 
*ž_  *ž_  *l-,›,  *:  *œ  k:¬l  *k:(’I)  *œ:  ™  *L 
    R› 
*ž_w  *ž_w  *l-,»™,  *:(º)  :(º)  *œ  k:¬l  *k:(º)  *:(º)    *ž(º)¬ 
    R›                º 
*_  *_  *-l»-,  *:  *œ¬  k:¬l  *‘  *:  ™-,  *L¬l/œ: 
    R›              -k:-,-g 
*_w  *_w  *-»™  *:  *œ¬  ™(º)  *‘(w)  *:(º)  ™  *º¬ 
      ¬(-™:-) ¬(-™:-)  ¬(-k•1†-)        Lº,žº 
*›_  *›_  *l-  *›:  ›:  *›:-,  h¬x  *-x:-  *›: 
         
*›_w  *›_º  *f-,l,  *x(º)¬  x(º)¬  *-›:-¹  h¬x:(º)  *x(w)  *›:(º)    *›º 
    R›  ›:  ›:  -›-  /l 

    Comments.

    1) In the 1st pers. pl. incl. pronoun we can reconstruct for PEC a voiced lateral fricative *L (cf. a similar reconstruction of voiced fricatives in other personal pronouns, see above) with the following reflexes: PN *t»(?), Av., PA *œ:, PTs *l, PL *ž, Khin. k. At any rate, PWC correspondences for PEC *L are missing, and this phoneme is not included in the table for lateral consonants.
    2) In PN the initial system of laterals has undergone serious transformations. Two lateral phonemes (PN *› and *ž) are preserved in PN only in medial position. The basic principle of the reflexation of laterals in PN is the preservation of lateral reflexes (l, ›, l») of non-labialized PEC phonemes and the appearance of velar (and uvular) reflexes in the place of PEC labialized laterals. The *l-reflex, occasionally met in labialized series of correspondences, is probably a consequence of an early delabialization of corresponding phoneme combinations in PN; only the PEC medial labialized *›w and *›_w have systematically yielded lateral reflexes in PN. When labialized laterals are velarized in PN, they are usually reflected in the initial position as *k (original non-glottalized occlusives), *™´ (original glottalized phonemes) and *f- (original fricatives); in medial position we observe the reflexes *», *g, *»™. PEC *ž_w in a few as yet unclear cases can be reflected in PN (in non-initial position) as *ª.
    3) Avar-Andian languages are rather conservative in the reflexation of laterals. Except some well-known processes (like the development * > Av. ®), we must also note a rather systematic process of velarization of labialized laterals (that has not affected only the combinations of -w- with lax * and *›, as well as with the "geminate" ž). However, it must be stated that this process was going on basically in non-initial position; in initial position only the development *›_w > xº (as well as *œw > xº) had occurred, and the appearance of initial k:, k (in the place of *œ_w, *žw) is probably caused by the dissimilative influence of the following resonant *š. Sporadically (as reflexes of *_w and *›_w) we also meet non-velarized œ:, ›:, probably as a result of early delabialization.
    We must also note a specific correlation of Av. œ:-: PA *›:- in the place of PEC labialized *œ_w (on the similar development of PEC *c_w > Av. c:, PA *s:; PEC *c´_w > Av. ‰:, PA *«: see above).
    4) The same process of velarization of old labialized laterals, except for the velarization of fricatives, is typical for PTs; thus, the beginning of this process can be dated from as far back as the period of Avar-Andi-Tsezian unity. In other respects the reflexation of laterals in PTs is generally similar to the reflexation of consonants in the hissing and hushing series; e. g., we observe the fricativization of all affricates, except the glottalized and the voiced "geminate".
    5) In all Eastern Daghestan languages, lateral consonants (except the resonant l) are lost at present; the only exception is Archi, which has obviously preserved the laterals as a result of contact with Avar-Andian. But evidently the process of the loss of laterals was comparatively recent; thus, in Lak, together with normal velar reflexes in many series of correspondences, we observe a sporadic l reflex; we can reconstruct a PL system of lateral affricates and fricatives even without using the Archi data (see below).
    We must state that the opposition of voiced and glottalized "geminates" in the lateral, as well as in other affricate series, is generally reconstructed on the basis of Eastern Daghestan evidence. However, the development of these geminates here differs a bit from their development in other affricate series; glottalized geminates here do not merge with the reflexes of plain glottalized consonants (cf. *_ > PL *:, PD *‘ vs. * > PL *, PD *™), while voiced geminates give reflexes, similar to those of PEC voiced (not aspirated) *ž. Therefore we could swap the reconstructions and reconstruct ž_ instead of _ and vice versa. This, however, would contradict the circumstance that the PEC geminate *ž_ < PNC *g_ (see below) has the same reflexes in Eastern Daghestan languages. Therefore it is probably appropriate here to suggest a shift in reflexation; first occurred the development *ž_ > *ž, and then the initial geminate *_ became voiced, taking the place of the lost ž_ (with the following development > PL *:, PD *‘ - cf. *½_ > PL *ˆ:, PD *z and so on).
    We should note the following specific features of development in individual Eastern Daghestan languages:
    a) in Lak: we observe a regular palatalization of velar reflexes before the vowels a, i (k > ‰, k: > ‰:, ™ > Š, x > «, x: > «:) - this process (not noted in the table) has affected both original lateral and velar sounds (see below). In addition, if pharyngealization is present, we can sporadically meet uvular reflexes *œ_ > »I as well as *ž_ > *’I > *j.
    b) in Dargwa, as in Lak, if an adjacent pharyngealized vowel is present, we sometimes meet uvular or laryngeal reflexes instead of velar ones.
    On the further development of lateral reflexes in Dargwa dialects and Lezghian languages see below, pp. 117-119, 131, 144.
    Khinalug stands close to Eastern Daghestan languages in its treatment of laterals: for the most part they have been transformed here into velars (it is unclear yet whether the development œ > ‰ is regular). However, because of insufficient evidence, Khinalug reflexes in many rows of correspondences are yet unclear.
    6) In PWC lateral consonants systematically give lateral reflexes (on the reconstruction of PWC laterals see below, page ). As for the development of qualitative and laryngeal features in PWC, the lateral series is similar to other affricate series (fricativization *œ > › and some other special features of development bring the lateral series close to the hissing one).
    7) The opposition of two lateral resonants - *l and *š - is reconstructed on the basis of the reflexes of Western Daghestan languages (where *l > r). The status of the phoneme *š in PEC and PNC is not yet quite clear (some features draw it near to resonants, others - to fricatives). In PWC *l and *š, as other resonants (see above), are subject to loss.
    The behaviour of the initial *l before the following syllable-final resonants n and m requires a special comment (it is worth noting that there are no examples of *š in this position). We have the following correspondences here (although on the whole there are not many examples):
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*l(..n)    *n-  m-    (*m- >0-)  *l-  *l-   
*l(..m)  *l-¬m-  *r-  r-  *n-  l-  *l-  *n-    *l-¬0- 

    An unusual reflex m- in Avar (and *m- > 0- in Lak; on the development of the initial *m in this language see above, page 43) is explained by the fact that in the single example where we have Avar and Lak reflexes, the medial consonant, following *-n-, is labialized; this labialization conditioned the secondary labialization of the initial nasal. Tsezian and Khinalug reflexes of *l- with the following nasals are not attested yet.

    1.1.8. Velar consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*k  *k  *k  *k  *k  *k  *k  *k 
*™  *™  *™  *™  ™  *™  ™  *™  *™  ™,-0,-Ng  *™/k: 
*g  *g  *g  *g  *g-,g•1†  g¬k:  *k:  *g¬k:  *g 
*x  *x  *»  *›  ›  *›¬›:  *x  *›  «(?)  *x 

    Velars in combination with -w-.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*kw  *kw  *k  *k(º)  k(º)  *k(º)  k(º)  *k(º)  *k(º)  *kº/k:º 
*gw  *gw  *k(¬g)  *g(º)  g(º)  *g•1†º  gº¬  *gº¬  *k:(º)  *gº/k:º 
          (¬gº)  k:º  *k:º  ¬*g(w) 
*™w  *™w  *™  *™(º)  ™(º)  *™(º)  ™(º)  *™(º)  *™(º)  ™-,-Ng  *™º¬¬gº 
*xw  *xw  *»  *x(º)  x(º)  *L-,  x(w)  *x:(º)  *›(º)  *xº 
        (¬›)  ›: 

    Velar "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*k_  *k_  *k  *k  k¬g  *k  k:  *k:  *k    *™(?)/k: 
*k_w  *k_w  *k  *kº  k(º)  *k(º)  k(º)  *k(º)  *k:(º)  k:º  *kº 
        ¬g(º) 
*g_  *ž_   - see above, page 53            *‘ 
*g_w  *ž_w - see above, page 53            *‘(º) 
*™_   *™_  *g-,™  *™:  ™:  *k(¬™)  k:  *k:  *k:-,™  ™  *™ 
*™_w  *™_w  *™  *™:(º)  ™:(º)  *q(º)  ™(º)  *k:(º)-, *k:(º)-,  ™  *ªº¬’º 
    (¬®ª?)      (¬ª(º))    ™(w)  ™(w) 
*x_  *x_  *»  *›:  ›:  *›:  x:  *x  *›:  *x 
*x_º  *x_º  *p»-,»  *›(º)  x¬›    x:(º) *x(º):  *›:(º)    *xw 

    Comments.

    1) Velar consonants, judging by their phonological features, were regarded as an affricate series (typical features - the presence of fricatives and geminates) in PNC and PEC. This situation is best preserved in modern Avar-Andian languages (that have a tense ™: opposed to the lax ™, as well as a velar fricative x), but to some extent the traces of the original state are preserved in other languages as well.
    2) The velar fricatives *x, *x: are reconstructed for PNC primarily on the basis of the joint evidence of Nakh and West-Caucasian languages, where their reflexes are markedly different from the reflexes of lateral fricatives (see above). However, in other languages the reflexes of velar and lateral fricatives are also somewhat different (e.g., in PD both lateral fricatives have merged in lax *x, while both velar ones have merged in tense *x:, etc.). For the detailed account of the reconstruction of the opposition of velar and lateral fricatives (not reconstructed by N. S. Trubetskoy and differently reconstructed by E. A. Bokarev and B. K. Gigineyshvili) see Starostin 1987, 440-441.
    3) There is some evidence in favour of reconstructing a PEC voiced fricative *‘ (correspondences: PN *’-,g: PA *h¬*€: Av. g: PTs *h-,0: PD *‘: PL *g¬k:), as well as the combination *‘w (correspondences: PN *’-: PA *h: Av. g(º): Lak g(º)¬h: PL *’-). However, not a single root with this fricative has a PWC correspondence - therefore the presence of *‘ in PNC is still dubious.
    4) The tense affricate k:, present in Avar-Andian languages, in all cases known to us, has developed either from laterals (see above) or from uvulars (see below). Therefore we cannot reconstruct PEC and PNC velar geminates in its place. However, there is a rather significant number of words that in different languages show velar reflexes with non-standard correspondences of laryngeal features. We have grouped these correspondences into rows where it seems plausible to reconstruct the geminates *k_ and *k_w respectively (if we suppose a development *k_ > *k, *k_w > *k(º) in Avar-Andi-Tsezian and the development *k_ > *k: or *k_ > *k in the Lak-Lezghian-Dargwa area).
    5) Some special comments on the behaviour of voiced *g and *gw are appropriate.
    The split of reflexes (*g > g¬k:) is observed in Lak and PL. One can note that in Lak g occurs basically within grammatical and pronominal morphemes and within expressive words; otherwise k: is common. In PL the split rules are not quite clear, but it seems that g occurs in some cases within medial clusters after preceding liquid and nasal resonants, while in some other cases it is a result of assimilation (or dissimilation) to adjacent consonants.
    As for *gw, the situation here is more complicated:
    a) in PN the basic reflex is probably *k (cf. *dw > *t, see above), but in some cases (probably as a result of early delabialization) we observe the development *gw > *g.
    b) in PTs the rules of the variation *gº¬g•1†º are not clear (as opposed to the distribution of non-labialized reflexes *g/*g•1†, see above).
    c) in Lak and PL the voiced reflex *g(º) is typical after an immediately preceding resonant; as for Dargwa, there is not enough evidence for establishing reliable rules of distribution.
    6) The voiced geminate *g_ can not be reconstructed for PEC; as for PNC, it is reconstructed on the basis of the correspondence PEC *ž_ : PWC *‘ (one of the few cases, when we can suppose a difference between PNC and PEC).
    7) In Lak, velars (both original ones and reflexes of laterals, see above) usually become palatalized and develop into hushing consonants before the vowels a, i; this (obviously late) process is not specially noted in the table.
    8) In PTs the reflex of the labialized geminate *™_w is regularly shifted into the uvular series (a phenomenon opposite to the one that was happening in many languages with labialized uvulars, see below). The same shift is typical for PWC (this is one of several characteristic phonetic isoglosses between PTs and PWC); it is not quite clear whether the sporadically occurring PN reflex *™_w > ®ª is somehow related to this. We must state that in PTs, in some cases, we also observe the development *™w > ª(º) in initial position, but it is less regular (in most cases in PTs the initial ™(º) is preserved).
    9) In PWC, velars generally are preserved (with the standard development of quantity and quality features, depending on the vocalic environment). We must note the devoicing *gw > kw (similar to what happened in PN; see above on a similar development of the labialized dental *dw in PWC and PN), and also the presence in some cases of an unexpected glottalized reflex of old non-glottalized "geminates" (however, the evidence available is not quite reliable).

    1.1.9. Uvular consonants.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*q  *q  *q  *q  h,R»  *»¬’:,  *q  *»  q,-»(€)  *»/q: 
          R»: 
*G  *G  *’  *’  ’  *»¬’:  q:  *q:  *q:  q:  *’ 
                /qI 
*ª  *ª  *q¬€  *ª    *ª  ª¬€  *ª-,  *ª  ª,-’  *ª(¬’) 
    (¬-R-)        -ª-¬-€- 
*»  *»  *»  *»:,  »:/“,  *»:(/’:-),  »:¬h  *»:-,  *»  »  *»(/q:?) 
      R»  R»  R»  (/“)  » 
*’  *’  *’  *’  ’  *»¬’:  ’  *’  *’    *’ 

    Uvular consonants in combinations with *w.
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*qw  *qw  *p“-  *q(º)  h,R»  *»¬’:,  q(º)  *q(º)  *»(º)  *»º 
          R»:          /q:º 
*Gw  *Gw  *q¬’  *’(º)  ’(º)  *»(º)¬  q:(º)  *’(º)-,  *q:(º)  q-  *’º 
               ’:(º)  (¬’º)  q:(º)  /qI(º)    /q:º 
*ªw  *ªw  *b‚-¬  *ªw-,  -,  *ª(º)  €-(w-)  *ª(º)-,  *ª(º)  ª-,  *ªº¬ 
    €-,ª  ™(º),  ™(º),    ¬ª-,™(º), ™(º),    ™  Gº/ 
    (¬’,€)  Rª(º)  ’    R€  Rª(º)¬R€      q:(º) 
*»w  *»w  *»  *»:,  »:(º)  *»:,  »(º):  *»(º)  *»(º)  »  *»º 
      R»  ¬h,R»  R»¬  ¬h 
        (¬Rh)  R’: 
*’w  *’w  *H  *’º  ’º  *’:º  h(¬’º)  *h¬“-,’  *’(º)  ’¬»  *’º 

    Uvular "geminates".
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*q_  *q_  *’¬q  *q:  q:  *»:  q¬»:  *q/qI:  *»:¬  »(?)  *G¬’ 
    (¬R»)    (¬»:)        q,Rq:  /q: 
*q_w  *q_w  *’¬q  *q:(º),  q:(º),  *»:(º)  q(:)-(w),  *q:(º),  *»:(º)  q:-,  *qº¬ 
         k:(º),  k:(º),    x:(º),  k:(º),  ¬q(º)  k,  »º/ 
      Rq:(º)  Rq:(º)    Rqº¬R»:º  Rq:(º)    Rq:  q:º 
*G_  *G_  *ª¬’  *ª:  ª:  *q  ª  *’-,q:  *ª:/  ª  *G 
                q:I  (/qI) 
*G_w  *G_w  *p“-¬  *ª:(º)  ª:(º)  *q(º)  ª(º)  *’º  *q:º-,  ª  *’º¬ 
    ª-,ª        (¬-0)  (¬q:º)  ª:º,  (¬’?)  ª(º) 
                Rq:º 
*ª_  *ª_  *’-,  *ª:  ª:  *q¬ª  ª,R’  *ª-,  *ª,-q:  ª,  *ª¬’ 
    ª          ª¬€,  (/ªI-,  -R  /q: 
                  Rh(/RhI)  ª:I) 
 
PNC  PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*ª_w  *ª_w  *p“-  *ª:(º)-,  ª:(º)-,  *q(º)¬  q:(º)-  *ªº-,  *ª(º)  ª-,  *ªw¬ 
    ¬ª-,  ™:(º),  ™:(º),  ª(º)  ¬€-,  Rª(º)  (¬ª:Iº-)  ™,  Rw/ 
    ª  Rª:(º)  Rª:(º)    ™(º),      Rª  qº: 
            Rª(º) 
*»_  *»_  *»-,  *»,R»:  h/»:,  *»:¬’:  »:¬h  *»:  *»:  »  *»(¬’?) 
    “  (/»:-)  R»:    (/“)  (¬h) 
*»_w  *»_w  *(p)“-,  *»(º),  »:(º)¬  *»:(º)  »:(º)  *»:(º)  *»:(º)  p»-,  *»º 
    “  R»(º):  h,R»  ¬’:(º)  ¬h(“)    » 

    Comments.
    1) Many North-Caucasian languages (Tsezian, Lak, Dargwa, Lezghian, Ubykh) possess, besides plain uvulars, a special series of uvular pharyngealized consonants (though in many of those languages pharyngealization can be combined not only with uvulars, and from the phonological point of view it may be considered an independent vocalic or prosodic feature - see [Starostin 1987, 465-466]). Pharyngealization (and the pharyngealization of uvulars in particular) is apparently the result of the fall of certain laryngeals (see below), therefore we do not reconstruct a special pharyngealized uvular series for PNC. However, it must be noted that pharyngealization rather often (especially in PL) leads to the modification of the reflex of the uvular consonant. Such modified reflexes were indicated in the table by the pharyngealization marker - I; the lack of such a marker in any row of correspondences means that the quality of a pharyngealized reflex does not differ from a corresponding non-pharyngealized one.
    2) In the reflexes of the labialized uvular affricates *ªw, *ª_w and *q_w in Avar-Andian, Lak, Dargwa and Khinalug, we observe a very characteristic parallel development: the uvular affricates in non-initial position shift to the velar series. This shift does not occur in combinations with preceding liquid resonants (r and l) or in initial position (a single exception from the last rule is the numeral "two", which is characterized by the development *ªw- > *™w-; this is apparently motivated by the exceptional monosyllabic structure of this root). For the correspondence Av. k: : PL *qº, E. A. Bokarev [Bokarev 1981] and B. K. Gigineyshvili [Gigineyshvili 1977] reconstruct a tense affricate *k:. The correspondence of Av. ™: : PL *ªº is interpreted by E. A. Bokarev as reflecting the PEC tense affricate *™:, while B. K. Gigineyshvili classifies it (as well as the correspondence of Av. ™: : PL *ªº, not noticed by E. A. Bokarev) as irregular (with a provisional reconstruction *™•1†). Neither of the authors have given thought to the circumstance that all the listed correspondences demand the obligatory presence of labialization and the medial position of corresponding reflexes and therefore are in strict complementary distribution with the correspondences "Av.-And. q: : PL *qº", "Av.-And. *ªº: PL *ªº" and "Av.And. *ª:(º): PL *ªº". These facts do not leave any doubt as to the necessity of reconstructing PEC (and PNC) uvular consonants in all these cases.
    The development of uvular labialized *q_w, *ªw and *ª_w into velars in medial postvocalic position has not at all afflicted Nakh, Tsezian, Lezghian and West-Caucasian languages. This development must be dated in a rather late period (after the break of the Avar-Andi-Tsezian unity); this is an important areal phonetic isogloss, which obviously can provide us with information about the geographic location of separate families of the East-Caucasian languages in the period about the 2nd-3rd millennium B.C.
    3) For Nakh languages, the difference between the reflexes of *» and *»_ is characteristic (other tense and lax fricatives usually merge there - see above), as well as the specific initial reflexes of labialized uvulars (*qw-, *»_w-,*G_w-,*ª_w> *p“-, *ªw> *b‚-). The reasons for the sporadic appearance of the reflex ’ (along with regular q and ª) in many rows of correspondences are not yet clear.
    4) Avar-Andian languages demonstrate a rather specific positional development of uvular fricatives ("the swapping of places" of the reflexes of *» and *»_ in all positions respectively, except the position after the medial liquid resonants; historically it can be explained as the treatment *» = »h and *»_ = » respectively in an independent position (not in combinations with consonants), with a further allophonic development *» > », *»h > »:). In Avar this process was going on not quite consequently; as a result we see frequent variations between »: and h (the latter reflects in Avar an earlier lax *» (in all positions except after original medial liquid resonants, where the fricative » is preserved as a rule, see [Starostin 1987, 448-449]). One may also note the presence of the emphatic laryngeal “ instead of » in Avar in words with lost pharyngealization (a rare case of segment reflection of pharyngealization in Avar).
    5) In Tsezian languages the distribution of the reflexes of *» is similar to that of Andian languages (see above) and probably dates from the period of Avar-Andi-Tsezian unity. Unfortunately, it is hard to show a similar distribution for the reflexes of PEC *»_ : it is connected with the general instability of PTs fricative reflexes of PEC uvulars (we observe here an unmotivated and unexplained variation *»¬’:, *»:¬’:).
    In other respects, the behaviour of uvulars in PTs is similar to that of other affricates.
    6) In Lak we must note the variation ª¬€ in the place of PEC *ª, as well as the variation between »: and h (the latter appears as “ if pharyngealization is present) in the place of PEC uvular fricatives. We can not state any strict rules of distribution between these reflexes; they apparently result from old dialect mergers. One can also note the voicing *Rª_ > *R’, parallel to the similar process in the system of front affricates (see above).
    7) In Dargwa, as in Lak, we meet the reflex € in the place of PEC *ª, and occasionally - h in the place of *»_; however, these sporadic reflexes are much less common here than in Lak (thus, the fricatives *», *»w and *»_w give quite uniform reflexes). The Lak R’ ( < *rª_) corresponds here to the combination *Rh (*RhI) that has obviously developed from an earlier *R’; therefore, Dargwa also reveals a positional voicing of the reflex of the glottalized geminate *ª_ after medial resonants (parallel to the development of other similar geminates, see above).
    8) In PL we see a split of the reflexes of several uvular consonants, depending on the presence or lack of pharyngealization (the *q:I reflex, expected in the place of PEC *G with pharyngalization, shifted early to lax (aspirated) *qI, but a new *q:I has developed here in the place of the voiced geminated *G_; thus there occurred a kind of "shift" of pharyngealized uvular consonants). PL reflexes of uvular voiced and glottalized geminates are very complicated; we see different positional complementary distributions of reflexes and a different development of pharyngealized and non-pharyngealized variants. In particular, one may note an untrivial development, *ª_ > *q:, in final position (i.e. in the final position of the PL nominal root already after the reduction of final vowels, see below) as opposed to the glottalized reflex *ª in initial and medial position (e.g., inside verbal roots). Despite the complexity of PL reflexes, they seem inwardly quite logical and are confirmed by a large number of examples, therefore seem quite reliable to us.
    9) The development of labialized uvulars in Khinalug is another feature that strictly distinguishes this language from Lezghian and brings it closer to Lak-Dargwa dialect zones on one side, and to Andi-Avar on the other. On the contrary, the development *»_w- > p»- (as well as some other features of consonantism) cuts Khinalug off from other Daghestan languages and brings it closer to Nakh. Unfortunately the materials on this interesting language are rather scanty, and the reflexes of some phonemes in it are either completely unknown or not reliable.
    10) In the reflexes of uvulars in PWC, as in those of the consonants of other local series (see above), we observe sporadic variation between voice/voicelessness and (more often) glottalization/voice. In other respects the development is standard (e.g., we observe the appearance of "new tense" consonants in the place of old voiceless uvulars before initially long vowels as well as the appearance of palatalized and labialized variants of reflexes, depending on the quality of original following vowels).
    In two roots there is an unusual correspondence PEC *»_w : PWC *žº. The reasons for the appearance of a lateral reflex in PWC (we can judge about its laterality by the Abkhaz reflex l, see below) are yet unclear (it is not to be excluded that in PWC these roots had a combination like *r-»º with the following development *r»º > *rw: the reflexes of this *rw could have merged with those of the PWC *žº in individual languages). This correspondence is not included in the general table (because of the uncertainty of its interpretation), though it seems quite real and reliable.

    1.1.10. Laryngeal consonants.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*€  *€-,0  *€¬h-  €-,0  *€  €-,0  *€-,0  *€  €-,0 
*h  *H  *h¬“  *h  h-  *€-¬h-  *h  h- 
*”  *“,-0-  *h-¬  “¬  *€-¬j-,  €I¬j  *€-¬h-,  *‚-/  h-(?), 
    €-,-€-    -0(I)-    “¬0  hI-,  -0 
        ¬-h-      -€(I)- 
*‚  *H-  *H  h-¬€-  *H-,€  €-  *-  *€   
*“  *“-,0    “-,0  *h-,-(I)  -“-  *-“-  *j  -0 
*“  *€-    *€-  *h-,“  *“   

    Laryngeals in combination with -w-.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*€w  *H  *€-¬b-,  €¬b  *€  h-¬b-,  *€  *€(I)º  w- 
    -€-      -0-  (¬-) 
*hw  *(b)‚-,  *H  h(¬“-)  *“-¬  €I-,0  *“-  *€   
  ‚¬0      h-,j-,    (¬w-), 
        j¬w    “¬0 
*”w  *H-(¬b-),  *H  “¬  *“-¬€-, €I-  *“  *“-   
  “      €(-0I-) (¬w-,  (¬b-?)  (¬w-?). 
          j-),    “(-€-) 
          0I(j) 
*‚w  *b‚-,“  *h(º)  *“-¬h-  €I-¬  *“-,h  *€(º)  p- 
           j-,0  (¬€) 
*“w  *“-,‚  *“¬h(w)  “  *“-  €I-¬  *-  *‚º-   
          bI-,0I  hI- 
*w    *H      €I-  *(º)  *€I(º) 

    Comments.
    1) Laryngeals are the most unstable class of consonants in North Caucasian languages. Their exact reflexes are often hard to establish (especially in PN and PA, where in some cases we use the symbol H, denoting an arbitrary laryngeal). Laryngeals are subject to frequent articulatory variations; such processes as dropping, development into j (for nonlabialized laryngeals) or w (for labialized ones) are typical for them. In PWC, as it is shown in the table, all laryngeals have been simply dropped (laryngeal consonants cannot be reconstructed for PWC, see below).
    Despite these difficulties, however, the established correspondences allow us to reconstruct a six-laryngeal system for PEC - three plain (*€, *h, *”) and three emphatic (*‚, *“, *) (and for PNC by extrapolation). A typical feature of the emphatic laryngeals is that nouns that contain them reveal in Avar an immobile accent paradigm (the so-called "Paradigm A"), while words with plain laryngeals (or without laryngeals) have in Avar either an oxyton or a mobile accent paradigm (paradigms B and C).
    In the table above we give only the reflexes of laryngeals in independent (initial and medial) positions. For their reflexes in combinations with other consonants (that seriously differ from their independent reflexes), see below.

    1.1.11. Consonant clusters

    Consonant clusters in PNC and PEC can be divided into three main groups:
    a) Clusters of identical consonants - the so-called "geminates" (their reflexes were shown above). These clusters have a "quasiphonemical" character, because, like simple consonants, they can occupy the second position in medial clusters with preceding resonants. On a possible prosodic treatment of the PNC "geminates", see below.
    b) Clusters of obstruents (except labial ones) with a following resonant w (their reflexes were also shown above). They too can occupy the second position in medial combinations with preceding resonants (therefore complexes like -rtw- or -nˆ_w- are possible).
    c) Clusters of different consonants that have an exact "biphonemical" status, i.e. do not let other consonant phonemes precede them. The components of these clusters are obstruents (plain or "geminated", with the following w or without it) and resonant consonants.
    The reflexes of the cluster types a) and b) (that can theoretically be treated as monophonemic) have been examined above. The c) type clusters may be grouped as follows:
    1) Clusters of obstruents. The combinations of oral obstruents were apparently not allowed (or extremely rare) in PNC and PEC; but there is a numerous and important group of clusters of oral obstruents and laryngeals (combinations like CH- and HC-).
    2) Clusters of obstruents and resonants. In PEC and PNC, combinations like RC are allowed; they are rather rarely encountered in initial position and very frequently otherwise. A subtype of this type of clusters are the combinations "resonant+laryngeal" (RH). The combinations of oral obstruents and following resonants (CR) were not allowed; however, the combinations "laryngeal+resonant" (HR) are reconstructed quite reliably (see below).
    3) Clusters of resonants. This type of combinations is rather rare and usually met only in non-initial position.
    In this section we will examine only the medial combinations of consonants in nominal roots; as for the behaviour of initial consonant clusters (in most languages simplified) as well as of consonant clusters in verbal roots, we would rather examine them in the section concerning root structure and prosody (see below).
    As we see from the above, possible clusters inside the PNC (PEC) root were RC, RH, HR, RR; we will now examine their reflexes.

    1.1.11.1. Clusters of the type RC ("resonant"+"obstruent").

    A typical feature of the behaviour of such clusters in North-Caucasian languages is the frequent dropping of resonants and the usual instability of their reflexes. Its consequence is in particular the fact that in PTs and PWC clusters like this were altogether simplified and preserved only the second obstruent component (in PTs some resonants have left a trace by having nasalized the previous vowel). We must specifically note the instability of the resonant *-l-, which is not preserved almost anywhere, but which has a tendency to change either into -r- or into -n- (with a possible following disappearance and nasalization of the previous vowel).

    1.1.11.1.A. Clusters "resonant+labial consonants".

    Such clusters are rather rare (the most frequent are combinations of the resonant -m- with different labials) and have the following reflexes:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rp  *p  *p    *p    *rp  *rp 
*rb    *p          *rp:    *b 
*lp  *p    l(V)p  *p  *rp  *p    *p: 
*mp  *m  *b  *m  *m¬b  *m  *p(?) 
*mb  *b  *b  *b¬m  *m  *m 

    It can be seen that the nasal -m- has a tendency to consume the following explosive articulation. On the whole, the reconstruction here is rather tentative - primarily because the clusters in question are rare (each cluster being present in one or two examples, and in many cases reflexes in individual languages are not attested at all).

    1.1.11.1.B. Clusters "resonant+front consonants"

    The general picture of reflexation here is as follows (the symbol T means any front consonant - dental explosive, hissing, hushing or palatal):
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rT  *(r)T  *rT/(r)T  (r)T  *T  rT  *rT/T  *rT  *T 

    In PN and Avar, -r- either disappears or is preserved (statistically in Avar the disappearance of this consonant is prevalent). In PA r is preserved if T is a dental explosive, but it can disappear before affricates or fricatives. In Dargwa -r- is usually preserved, but regularly disappears before the glottalized *ˆ, *ˆ_. The most stable reflexation is that of PL and Lak on one side (where *r is always preserved) and in PTs and PWC on the other (where it always disappears).
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*lT  *(r)T  *T/nT  (r)T  *(V¬)T  (r)T  *rT/T  *lT/T  *T 

    The resonant *l in combinations with front consonants is reconstructed basically on the evidence of PL (on the reconstruction of *l-clusters in PL see below, page 153).
    In PN and Avar, *l in the examined combinations can either develop into r or disappear (the distribution between these two types of reflexes is unclear yet); on a special reflexation of some clusters with *l in PN (> PN *tt, *st) see above, page 47). Lak has similar reflexes (either development into r or disappearance of *l), though here we also meet sporadic cases of preserving -l- or the change -l- > -n-.
    In PA *l (unlike *r, see above) usually disappears, leaving no trace. However, before the PA hushing consonants *‰, *¼ we see the development *l > *n (in single cases even the preservation of l).
    In PTs the medial *l regularly disappears, leaving behind a nasalisation of the preceding vowel (apparently through an intermediate state *-l- > *-n-).
    In PD the reflexes of *l are generally similar to those of *r; *l usually develops into r, but it can disappear before following hissing consonants (not only before glottalized, as in the case of *r).
    PL preserves *l in most cases; this consonant disappears only before hushing sounds in the sequence *mVl‰- > *mV‰- (apparently as a result of a progressive nasalization *mVl‰- > *mVn‰- > *mV‰-).
    Finally, in Khinalug (in the few attested cases) and in PWC *-l- disappears without a trace.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*nT  *nT/T/rT  *nT/T  nT/T  *(V~)T¬(V)T  nT/T  *(n)T  *nT/rT  *T 

    The medial *n, as all other resonants, is best preserved in PL (though the sequences *bVnT-, *mVnT- in PL had undergone an early dissimilative development *mVnT- > *mVrT- or resonant dropping *mVnT- > *mVT-).
    In PN *n is preserved before dental explosives, develops into *r (becomes subject to denasalization) or disappears before fricatives and disappears before affricates. A similar distribution of reflexes (though without the development *n > r) is met in Avar and Lak, where *n is usually preserved before dental explosives, but dropped before affricates.
    In PA *n usually is preserved in combinations; however, if a nasal *n is present in initial position or in the following syllable it disappears by dissimilation; sometimes it is dropped also before fricatives.
    In PD *n is in most cases preserved, though it may sporadically disappear.
    In Khinalug, PWC and PTs *-n-, like the other resonants, usually disappears. PTs reveals in some cases the nasalization of the preceding vowel; however, sometimes *n disappears without any trace.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*mT  *nT/T  *(n)T  *(V~)T¬(V)T  (n)T  *mT/nT/T  *mT/T  mT/T  *T 

    In PL and PD, the nasal in clusters of the type *mT is usually preserved, disappearing only (as a consequence of dissimilation) after the initial resonants. PL always preserves the labial character of *m, while Dargwa preserves *m proper only if a hissing consonant is following; in other cases it turns into n.
    PA and Lak reveal a variation between *nT and *T; in Khinalug in the few known cases we observe either the preservation of m, either its disappearance (with unclear distribution).
    In PN *m (unlike *n, see above) usually disappears before dental explosives, but is preserved (as n, rarely m) before affricates; the character of Nakh reflexes before original fricatives is not quite clear. It must be noted that when the original affricates after *-m- develop into PN *tt (see above, page 46), *-m- (just as *-n-) regularly disappears. In rare cases in PN we see a sporadic denasalization *-mT- > *-bT-.
    Avar regularly simplifies *mT > T (including the position before dental explosives, where the old *n is preserved, see above). The same is true for PTs (where we observe the same occasional nasalization of the previous vowel, as in the case with *n) and for PWC.
    The resonants *w and *j are rather rarely met as components of medial consonant clusters; the medial -j- is not preserved at all in modern languages, but it can be reconstructed in some cases, judging by the character of the PN reflex of adjacent affricates or fricatives (see above, page 47).
    Front consonants themselves, as components of clusters with preceding resonants, usually give normal reflexes (see above), though we must note a specific development of the voiced dental *d, which may be consumed by the preceding resonant articulation:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rd  *rd¬r  *rd  rd¬r  *d¬r  rt:¬d  *(r)t:  *rt:  *d 
*rdw  *t  *rd  rd  *d  rt:  *rt:  *rd 
*ld    *ld  (l)d  *l  j(?)¬ll  *lt:  *rt: 
*nd  *d  *nd  (n)d  *d  t:¬nn  *(n)t:      *d 
*md  *d  *(n)d  *d•1†¬d  (n)t:¬d  *(n)t:  *mt¬t: 

    1.1.11.1.C. Clusters "resonant+lateral consonants".

    In the table of correspondences given below we will mark the laterals by the symbol L, and velars - by K. Before laterals we reconstruct the same set of resonants that we do before other obstruents (i.e. *r, *l, *n, *m; *w is met very rarely and its reflexation will not be specially examined; combinations with *j cannot be reconstructed).
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rL  *rL  *rL    *L  *(r)K  *rL  *L 

    As we see in this table, *r in lateral clusters is preserved by PL, PN, PA and (not always) in PD; in other languages *-r- disappears.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*lL  *L  *rL  rL  *L  rK  *rK  *L 

    The clusters "l+lateral" are reconstructed here only from systematic considerations (by analogy with the development of *l in combinations with other consonants). The loss *l > 0 in PL, where resonants usually are preserved, is characteristic; it is quite probable that the lateral articulation of *l was preserved here too, which ultimately resulted in its dropping by dissimilation with the following lateral obstruent. In rare cases, when *l and the following lateral obstruent happen to be divided by the syllable border, *l can even be preserved in PL. In other languages *l can either develop into r or disappear; however, it is worth noting that its reflexes in most languages differ from those of *r.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*nL  *rL  *nL/L  *L  *(n)K¬rK  *nL/L  *L 

    The resonant *n, in combinations with following laterals, is also rather unstable. It is preserved in PA (but disappears here as a consequence of dissimilation after initial resonants: *wVnL- > *mVL-¬ *bVL-), in PL (with a similar disappearance *wVnL- > *wVL-), and sometimes in PD (though the disappearance *n > 0 or the development *n > r is more frequent here). In other languages *n disappears before laterals (although PTs, Lak and Khinalug may preserve its trace as nasalization of initial resonants; in Lak this nasalization was followed by the dissimilative denasalization of *-n- and its development into -r-: *bVnL- > *mVnL- > *mVrK-). In PN it develops into -r-.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*mL  *L  *mL/L  *L  nK  *(n)K  *mL/rL  *L 

    The resonant *m is preserved in PA (though it disappears as a consequence of dissimilation in the sequence *bVmL- > bVL-) and in PL (where *m in the same sequence had undergone a more complicated development: *bVmL- > *bVnL- > *mVnL- > mVrL-). In Lak *mL > nK (unlike the sequence *nL, where *n disappears). In other languages the reflexes of *m and *n in clusters with laterals usually coincide.

    1.1.11.1.D. Clusters "resonant+back consonants".
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rK  *(r)K  *rK/(r)K  rK/(r)K  *K  rK/K  *(r)K  *rK  nK  *K 

    The resonant *r before back consonants is preserved in PL and regularly disappears in PTs and PWC. In PN -r- may be both preserved and dropped. In PA and Avar such a variation is observed before uvular consonants; before velars r is usually preserved. In Lak r is preserved in most cases, but regularly disappears before uvulars which yield Lak q. Finally, in Khinalug, judging by the few available examples, *r either disappears or develops into n.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*lK  *(r)K  *nK/K  *(V~)K  (r)K  *(r)K  *lK/K  *K 

    The resonant *l, before back consonants, usually behaves more or less in the same way as before the front ones. It is preserved in PL (though we must specially note the development of the sequence *wVlK- > *wVK- ¬ *wVnK-). In PN, PD and Lak there is a variation between the reflexes K and rK (in Lak and PD lK may also be sporadically preserved). In Avar -l- is sporadically preserved, too, although in most cases the resonant disappears. In PA *l, before back consonants, regularly develops into n (but in the sequence *wVlK- > *wVnK- > *mVK- this medial nasal disappears through dissimilation; Avar in this position sometimes reveals not the disappearance, but a dissimilative development *wVnK- > mVrK-). In PTs *l first developed into a nasal, then disappeared, leaving behind the nasalization of the previous vowel. Finally, in PWC we observe a regular disappearance of the resonant in clusters like this.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*nK  *K  *nK/K  nK/K  *(V)K¬(V~)K  nK  *rK  *nK/K  (n)K  *K 

    The combination *nK is preserved in Avar-Andian (with the usual limitation: -n-> -0- after initial resonants) and in Lak. In PL *n is preserved before velars but disappears before uvulars (combinations "n+uvular" are missing in PL). In the sequence *mVnK- the resonant -n- can be preserved or disappear arbitrarily (*mVnK- > *mVnK- ¬ *mVK-); we must specially note a dissimilative development *bVnQ- >*mVnQ- > *mVrQ-). In PTs, after the disappearance of *-n-, the nasalization of the previous vowel can be preserved (as in combinations with front consonants, see above). In PN and PWC *n usually disappears.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*mK  *mK¬nK  *nK  *(V~)K  nK¬wK  *nK  *mK    *K 

    The nasal labial in combinations with the following back consonants is well preserved in PL and sometimes preserved in PN (though more often transformed into -n-); in PD *m may be preserved in reduplicated morphemes (i.e. on the syllable border), but usually develops into -n-. Traces of labialization are also found in Lak, where we can sometimes discover a denasalizated reflex -wK-, though in most cases we find the reflex -nK-. This reflex is usual in PA. In Avar (as in the case with the combination *mT), PWC and PTs the nasal disappears (and in PTs often, though not always, leaves a trace as the nasalization of the preceding vowel).
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*wK  *(b)K  *(w)K  *K  (w)K  *(b)K  *(w)K 

    The resonant *w is met more often before back consonants than before others (though on the whole it is much less frequen than other resonants). It may be preserved in PN (as b), in PA, Lak, PD (as b) and PL.

    1.1.11.2. Clusters of the type RH ("resonant"+"laryngeal").

    Of all the subgroups of North-Caucasian languages such combinations (and only a limited number of them) can only be reconstructed for Proto-Andian. However, there is a whole series of phenomena that may be conveniently explained if we assume the presence of such combinations in PNC and PEC. First of all, there are frequent cases of the loss of non-initial resonants in PD, Lak, PTs, Avar and PN, which rather often (see below) correlate with the presence of RH clusters in PA. In these cases it is natural to suggest a development of the type *-RH- > *-H-> -0- with the weakening of resonant articulation in the medial cluster (a phenomenon which is quite usual in other medial clusters, see above) that led to the disappearance of the resonant, and ultimately to the disappearance of the whole medial cluster (because intervocalic laryngeals are themselves very unstable, see above). We must emphasize that in these cases there is no question of any grammatical affixes ("determinatives") being joined or not joined to the root, because in two subgroups - PL and PA - the resonants in the examined cases are always preserved, and because in other languages, if resonant reflexes are present, they reflect the same PNC resonant (and not different ones, which would be natural, if we were dealing with reflexes of different grammatical morphemes).
    The second circumstance to which we must pay attention is the presence, in PL, in many of the cases mentioned above (i.e. as correspondences to PA clusters of the type *RH and to the dropped resonants in other languages) of the so-called "tense" resonants *m:, *n:, *l: (on the reflexes of these consonants in modern Lezghian languages, see below). This means that in PL there occurred a process inverse to the one described above - i.e. the strengthening of resonants in combination with following laryngeals, with a total consumption of the laryngeal articulation. It must be emphasized that the *RH-clusters are the only source of PL tense resonants; the sometimes proposed suggestion that in these cases we are dealing with earlier combinations of the type *mb or *nd is thus apparently unfounded.
    The combinations "resonant+laryngeal" can be divided into three main types by the character of reflexation in the subgroups. We tentatively reconstruct therein the laryngeals *€, *h and *” (tense resonants in PL appear in two last types of combinations, therefore the reconstruction of similar laryngeals would be natural for them; however, the question where to reconstruct *h and where *” is solved rather arbitrarily, primarily because laryngeal reflexes are missing in most languages, and PA reflections are not sufficient to determine the exact character of laryngeal articulation in PNC and PEC).
    Since Avar has both barytonal and non-barytonal accent paradigms in words with *RH-clusters (see above, page 62, on the connection of Avar paradigms with the quality of laryngeals), there are reasons for reconstructing both plain and emphatic laryngeals in *RH-clusters (the latter having caused the appearance of the immobile paradigm A in Avar). We can thus also reconstruct the combinations *R‚, *R“, *R, that, however, generally give the same segment reflexes as the combinations *R€, *Rh, *R” (the difference between the combinations of the types *R€ and *R‚ is probably also reflected in Lak, see below).
    The development of the clusters of the type *RH may be summarized in the following way:

    A. Clusters of the type *R€/*R‚
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*m€(*m‚)  *m¬0  *mH  *(V~)0  m/0  *m  *m  *0 
*n€(*n‚)  *n¬0  *n€  n¬0  *(V~)0  n/0  *n¬0  *n  *0¬n 
*r€(*r‚)  *r¬0  *r(H)  *(V~)0  r/0  *r¬0  *r    *0 
*l€(*l‚)  *0  *rH  *r  l/0  *l  *l  *0(¬*l) 
*š€(*š‚)  *0  *l(H)  *0  l/0  *l  *l  *0 

    The variation between zero and non-zero reflexes is observed in some cases in PN, Avar and PD. In PWC, in most cases, we observe zero reflexes (which corresponds to the general tendency of dropping resonants in PWC). Characteristic for PTs is the compensating nasalization of the vowel preceding the lost resonants (which also confirms the suggestion of original consonant clusters here - cf. a similar phenomenon in the development of *RC-clusters, see above).
    As for Lak reflexes, in the few cases, when Lak and Avar reflexes are present at the same time, we have Lak 0 corresponding to the Avar paradigm A (cf. ja : ber 'eye', ka : kºer 'hand') while the preservation of the resonant corresponds to Avar paradigms B and C (cf. ula : er 'board, pole', ˆun : ˆ:i´nu 'navel', ªan : ono´ 'flat stone'). Thus, we may suggest that PEC *R€-clusters are reflected in Lak as resonants, while *R‚-clusters yield 0 (with the disappearance of resonants before *-‚> -0-).

    B. Clusters of the type *Rh/*R“.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*mh(*m“)  *m(¬0)  *m  *m  *m  *m:    *0 
*nh(*n“)  *0  *nH  *(V~)0  *0  *n:  0¬n  *0 
*rh(*r“)  *0  *r  *(V~)0  *0  *r  *0 
*lh(*l“)    *r    *0  *l:         *0 
*šh(*š“)  *l  *l  *l  *0  *l:  *0 

    This type of clusters is characterized by the presence of tense resonants in PL (except *r, which only has a lax variant in PL), the prevalent disappearance of resonants in Lak and Dargwa (except *m, which is always preserved in Dargwa) and the lack of laryngeals in PA reflexes (except the combination *nh > *nH). The latter may to some extent serve as an argument for reconstructing the laryngeal *h in this case: since the reflexes of the cluster types A and C (see below) in PA generally coincide, but somewhat differ from the reflexes of type B, it is natural to suggest that in types A and C we are dealing with the reflexes of the laryngeals *€ and *” (whose non-initial reflections coincide in PA, but differ from the reflection of *h: see above, page 61).

    C. Clusters of the type *R”/*R.
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*m”(*m)  *0  *m(H)  *(V~)H  *m  *m:    *0 
*n”(*n)  *0  *n€  *(V~)0  *n  *n: 
*r”(*r)  *0  *rH  *0  *r  *r    *0 
*l”(*l)  *0    *r  l¬0  *l  *l: 
*š”(*š)  *0  *l(H)  0(¬l)  *l  *l  *l:  *0(¬l) 

    In this type of clusters PL has the same reflexes as in the previous one, while PA reflexes generally coincide with the reflexes of the type *R€/*R‚. For PN zero reflexation is typical, while, on the contrary, PD (and, in most cases, in Lak) regularly preserve resonants.
    As a conclusion to this section we must note the preservation of the distinction between two lateral resonants (*l and *š) with following laryngeals; this opposition is lacking in the clusters of the type *RC (see above), which once again emphasizes the ambiguous character of the phoneme *š in PNC and PEC (the possibility of regarding it both as an obstruent and a resonant).
    Reliable cases of combinations of the resonants *w and *j with following laryngeals have not been found.

    1.1.11.3. Clusters of the type *HR ("laryngeal"+"resonant").

    In some nominal roots we discover correspondences somewhat similar to those described in p. 1.1.11.2, but differing in several respects. In some languages (e.g. in Tsezian and Andian) the reflexes are just the same, but in others (e.g. in Nakh, Avar and Lezghian) we meet a total loss of resonants and the preservation of the reflexes of laryngeal consonants. In these cases we tentatively reconstruct original PEC (and PNC) clusters of the type *HR, suggesting either the development *HR > *RH or *HR > *H in descendant languages. Here we will list all types of such correspondences, known to us:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*€n    *n(H)  *(V~)0  *0  *€ 
*€r  *0  *r€    *0  *j    *r 
*hn  *n  *nH  n¬0  *n  *0¬j  *h  (?)l  *0 
*hl¬”l  *€  *r(H)          *l¬l:    *0 
*”š  *€  *l    *l    *l 
*”r  *“    “  *r      *r 
*”n  *n  *n€      0I  *“  *hI 
*‚n  *0¬“    *nH  *(V~)h  *h  *€  (*m) 
*“n  *n  *n(H)  *(V~)0      *j 
*“r  *0  (*h)  *0  *r  *r  *r 
*“l    *r  *(V~)0      *j¬€ 
*r  *0  *r  *(V~)0    *0  *‚ 
*n(?)    *€      *n  *n 

    *HR-clusters are more rare than *RH-clusters, therefore in many cases the reconstructions are quite tentative.

    1.1.11.4. Clusters of the type *RR ("resonant"+"resonant").

    In a small number of nominal roots we discover a variation of reflexes of different resonants. We may suppose that these variations reflect original clusters of resonants, simplified in all descendant languages. We can establish the following rows of correspondences:
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*rn  *rn  *nH  *n  *r  *r  *r 
*ln    *n      *l¬l: 
*mn  *n  *m          *m  *0 
 
PNC,PEC  PN  PA  Av  PTs  Lak  PD  PL  Khin  PWC 
*wn            *w 
*nm  *m  *n  *m  nn  *m  *n 
*wš  *l  *l      *w 

    In some words it seems possible to reconstruct also other medial clusters of resonants with *w and *j as the first component; in such clusters all languages usually reflect only the second resonant (though sometimes we see reflexes similar to *RH-clusters); as for the first component, it is indirectly reflected in its influence on vowels or initial consonants.