User:ɶLerman/PN.critical remarks


 * Johanna B. Nichols (Nichols 2004), comparing the Aeqqii, Chechen and Ingush forms, writes that: “Ingush muʼa could be cognate to Chechen muo, but not to Aeqqii moda, and it cannot descend from *moda. I am inclined to regard the Ingush form as aberrant—intervocalic glottal stop is generally lost in Ingush, so the word looks noncanonical no matter what its origin.”
 * She does not explain why the Ingush muʼa cannot be related to the Aeqqii moda, and why it cannot descend from a reconstructed form. Since Nichols does not give the Bats form, she reconstructs *moda, although she writes a question mark next to the reconstruction. Apparently correct would be to reconstruct the form as *madu, given the new data. It is unclear whether it is correct to consider Ingush form “aberrant,” because there is another form of a similar structure in Chechen and Ingush, this is šuʼa with the meaning “abomasum.” In addition, Chechen and Ingush have the forms šuo and šoa with normal development, and in Aqua as šau(a). It can also be noticed that similar in structure to the Aeqqii ḥʳooda corresponds to the Ingush ḥʳoa with the meaning “brain.”


 * Peter Schrijver (Schrijver 2021), comparing the Chechen (and dialects), Ingush and Bats forms, writes that: “Batsbi second-syllable a does not agree with the Chechen-Ingush forms.” He reconstructs two forms at once *ḳʕaaḳom and *ḳʕaač̣om, possibly following the remarks of Nikolaev and Starostin, as well as Starostin Jr. about palatalized consonants. The latter believe that there might not have been palatalized consonants in Proto-Nakh simply because of the small amount of material that would indicate such reconstructions. Although when increasing the material, you can notice that palatalized consonants meet with the vowels *a, *aa and *e. It should be noted that the palatalized consonant existed even in the Proto-Vainakh, since the sources have the dialect form ḳoogom (compare with Bats ḳʕaḳam, where ⁽*⁾-ḳ- always corresponds in the intervocalic position in the Vainakh ⁽*⁾-g-) on a par with the Chechen ḳaažam and Ingush ḳoažam. Therefore, at the first stage, it is necessary to reconstruct the form as *ḳʕaaḳʸVm.
 * The next stage involves the reconstruction of vowels. Early sources that fix the Bats have a form ḳʕaḳamo with a final vowel, which was already reduced in the middle of the 19th century. This final ⁽*⁾-o in the Vainakh languages just changed the vowel in the second-syllable as a result of the distact regressive assimilation of vowels and reduced. And then the changed vowel in the second-syllable changed the vowel in the first-syllable, although in some dialects the vowel of the second-syllable could be further changed under the influence of the final ⁽*⁾-m, which also influenced the vowel of the first-syllable. Therefore, at the second stage, it is necessary to reconstruct the form as *ḳʕaaḳʸamo.


 * + Nichols/Vagapov (Nichols, Vagapov 2004) page 207