Kartvelian Languages

Laz, a South Caucasian language, is spoken in the North East of Turkey. It is also the part of the country abundant with rain. Located at the eastern end of the Pontus mountain range, which is the continuation of the Caucasian mountains, this place was split with valleys stretching to the Kaçkar summit at an altitude of 3937 meters. Traditional corn farming in low and inefficient agricultural areas has been replaced by tea plantations.
The Laz language was classified as “clearly endangered” languages by UNESCO in 2008. Laz, whose speakers are decreasing from generation to generation, is largely abandoned by young Laz people. Factors such as the end of the traditional agricultural economy, urbanization, migration and the gradual withdrawal of Laz language from modern life has lead to the endangering of plant names in particular. This knowledge, which is preserved only in people who have a relationship with agriculture and animal husbandry over a certain age, will be forgotten with this generation.
This study aims to compile forgotten Laz plant names. For this purpose, 1022 Laz plant names belonging to about 320 taxa were collected and identified by interviewing more than one hundred people. The English and Turkish and when possible Latin names of the identified plants were included into the description.
Furthermore, the Mingrelian, Svan and Georgian plant names have been added to the lists, where possible, which enables the reader to compare, as these languages have linguistic and geographic relationships to Laz.
The book consists of two chapters. You’ll find plant names in Laz in the first part, and in the second part you will find indices in Turkish, English, Georgian, Svan, Mingrelian and Latin.

This table began as a comparison of Etruscan words to other Indo-European words, and it is clear that the linkage to Etruscan illuminates some new patterns in Indo-European word relationships. We added for further comparison words from the Baltic group (Latvian), Kartvelian (Georgian) and Uralic (Finnish) and Basque, a "language isolate" that looks as much Indo-European as othes in the Indo-European group. For those who advocate Hurrian connections Hurrian words that are available have been added to the table.  *PIE specialists have been speculating on the idea that the three language families, Baltic, Uralic and Kartvelian may be related to Indo-European, perhaps as a super family.
  The Indo-European family of languages is believed to have originated north of the Black Sea (Pontic Region). Some scholars have indicated a Caucasus origin. Although we can't rule out borrowing among [unrelated] languages it appears from the interesting shifts that the languages in our "Indo-European Table may be one family. I found šāl-a, šali, šala (Hurrian)
ასული, asuli, daughter(Georgian); თვით, t’vit’, self (Georgian), sevi, self (Latvian), vete, (Albanian); ხუთი, khut’i, five (Georgian), пяць, piać (Belarussian), pieci (Latvian), pesë (Albanian), pente (Greek) and pajncha (Sanskrit) interesting. (The interesting relationships continue through the table. The table is alphabetically arranged via the right-hand column, Etruscan words.

The paper focuses on the decipherment of the Svan word "gudra", a cognate of the Kartuli (Georgian) and Megrelian lexeme "guda" designating a 'a skin bag'. The analysis throws a new light on the second component of the Svan word (-ra), which is a shortened form of the 19th letter-sign RAE of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet. RAE or the Sun of Suns (Great Sun) is the full form of the Egyptian Sun God name Ra/Re, too. As a result, the Svan "gudra" is connected with the Germanic GOD/GOTT through its first root (gud) and the Egyptian Sun God through its second root morpheme (ra).

This interdisciplinary study allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had an ancient common origin, as macrohaplogroups F and K, from which stem all European haplogroups, and haplogroup H could appear in India.

REPRINT OF:  Sir O. Wardrop, English-Svanetian Dictionay, Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society 1911, XVI, 589-634.

English-Svanetian Dictionary - The recent establishment of a fund in the University of Oxford for the encouragement of the study of the Georgian family of languages may in the course of time attract the attention of British philologists to the Western Caucasus, and an increasing stream of travelers will doubtless find their way thither seeking knowledge, health, sport, and scenery; it is for such visitors that the following vocabulary has been compiled.

The Book you can find on Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/English-Svanetian-Dictionary-Sir-Oliver-Wardrop/dp/9941961646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542703788&sr=8-1&keywords=english-svanetian+dictionary

Los numerales ibéricos: ¿indoeuropeos, afrasiáticos, proto-vascos, urálicos, o mas bien eurasiático-altaicos?

Por Georgeos Díaz-Montexano – The Epigraphic Society.

Ensayo epigráfico-lingüístico comparativo donde se muestra cómo los dos únicos dados conocidos hasta la fecha con letras ibéricas en sus caras, de acuerdo a la hipótesis acrofónica (signos para el principal fonema del término usado para cada numeral), solo pueden ser explicados como tales desde las lenguas de la familia conocida como Altaica o Eurasiático-Altaica.

Eurasia's exuberant linguistic diversity can best be seen through the lens of the 'core' Eurasian linguistic regions: the Steppe, the Caucasus, and the Himalaya-Pamir-Tian Shan mountain ranges. They also present citation examples of how geography affects the distribution and evolution of language families: spread-zones vs. residual zones.

Encyclopedia article for International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology

Indo-European hoax; Indo-European languages originated from the Kartvelian family; Kartvelian origin of toponyms, morphemes and vocabulary of languages of Ukraine, Spain, Italy, Britain, France, Greece, Turkey, Baltic states, Scandinavia, Africa, Asia, Americas; the Kartvelian-Basque connection; Kartvelian origin of Ukrainian surnames; world’s toponyms in Georgian surnames.

The book examines several Sumerian words of unknown origin and shows that they derive from the Kartvelian language depth. The book includes five articles etymologizing the Sumerian "kakkala" 'plant', "kabkab" 'bird', "ugula" 'overseer', "gub" 'to stand', "kan" 'door', and a few homonymous "kar" lexemes.

LOS IBEROS primeros fundadores de Europa es un extracto del libro Karuo el secreto ibero, por el cual Enrique Cabrejas o Enric Cabrejas nos relata de modo llano su experiencia personal con lo extraordinario de un descubrimiento. El 21 de Abril de 2012 consiguió lo que parecía imposible: Descifrar la escritura ibérica. El hallazgo más relevante de la cultura universal en nuestro país de los últimos tiempos, sin lugar a dudas. Un hito en la historia de la escritura sin precedentes. Desde este mismo instante la obra Karuo de Enrique Cabrejas lo convierte en un referente destacado a nivel mundial en historia y lingüística. Los innumerables datos, explicaciones, pruebas y significados que nos reporta nunca conocidos antes, son una referencia obligada para todos aquellos que quieran comprender la historia, la lengua antigua e incluso también la moderna de nuestro país o para quienes en el futuro deseen estudiarla e investigarla en profundidad, más si cabe desde el mundo académico.

This interdisciplinary study allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had an ancient common origin, as the macrohaplogroups F and K, from which stem all European haplogroups, and the haplogroup H could appear in India.
Cette étude interdisciplinaire m’a permis de démontrer, sur la base de données linguistiques, génétiques, archéologiques, historiques et religieuses, que les correspondances linguistiques entre le gaulois et le slave étaient liées à des migrations Néolithiques d’Inde et du Pakistan du Nord-Ouest vers l’Iran, la Mésopotamie, l’Anatolie, le Caucase, le Nord de la Mer Noire, l’Europe danubienne et balkanique, la Gaule et l’Ibérie, où les
agriculteurs néolithiques ont contribué à former la civilisation mégalithique qui s’est développée en Gaule à partir de -5.000 et apporté une langue archaïque issue d’une langue originelle trans-eurasienne. Cela explique les correspondances linguistiques que j’ai établies entre le gaulois et les langues dravidiennes - 250 mots communs sur les 500 mots étudiés (et 160 avec le bourouchaski), ainsi qu’avec les langues altaïques,
ouraliennes, karvéliennes, anatoliennes et moyen-orientales. Cela explique aussi les similitudes constatées dans l’organisation de la société et la religion, qui amènent certains chercheurs à suggérer, sur la base de la
diffusion du très ancien haplogroupe H2 P-96 de l’Inde à l’Europe de l’Ouest, que les premiers Européens et les proto-Dravidiens avaient une origine commune très ancienne, les macro-haplogroupes F et K, desquels
descendent tous les haplogroupes européens, et l’haplogroupe H ayant pu apparaitre en Inde.

This interdisciplinary study, published in Scientific Culture, journal supported by the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, allowed me to establish, on the basis of linguistic, genetic, archaeological, historical and religious data, that linguistic concordances between Gaulish and Slavic were linked with Neolithic migrations from NorthWestern India and Pakistan to Iran, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Caucasus, the North of the Black Sea, Danubic and Balkan Europe, Gaul and Iberia, where Neolithic farmers contributed to the formation of the megalithic civilisation which developed in Gaul from 5.000 BC and brought an archaic language stemming from a Trans-Eurasian original language. This explains the linguistic concordances I established between Gaulish and Dravidian languages-250 common words from the 500 words I studied (and 160 with Burushaski), as well as with Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Anatolian and Middle-Eastern languages. This also explains similarities I have found in the organisation of the Society and religion, which lead certain researchers to suggest, on the basis of the spread of the very ancient haplogroup H2 P-96 from India to Western Europe, that first Europeans and proto-Dravidians had a very ancient common origin, as the macrohaplogroup F and the haplogroup H could appear in India.

Book 1 of several books. These documents are developed from the Chicago Oriental Institute Akkadian dictionary which is alphabetized as Akkadian-English. I needed an English-Akkadian document, and – finding nothing readily available—decided to convert the Akkadian-English files to an abbreviated English-Akkadian version.  The oi.chicago.edu volumes are amazingly detailed, showing the specific usages and texts where each word in the dictionary is used. The individual volumes range in size from about 200 pages to 600+ pages, and as one will see in reviewing this complex oi.chicago work, the work is massive (Akk. “eŝqu”).
    My need to prepare the English-Akkadian version has to do with my work in preparation of the “Etruscan Phrases Indo-European Table.”  This table began as a table that showed Indo-European leximes/cognates that coincided with the 2,500 words vocabulary I developed from examination and translation of over 600 Etruscan texts. Later, in preparation of this table it became apparent that there was a greater mission involved with the table, of reconciling Indo-European languages with other language groups, first Baltic, Uralic and Kartvelian, then finding a need to expand the listing of concording lexemes to Hurrian/Urartian and subsequently Akkadian.  I refer those who are interested to begin with our Indo-European Table, Part 1, available at academia.edu or at maravot.com Etruscan Phrases, which is at:
http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table.html or http://www.maravot.com/Indo-European_Table.html.
    Included in this dictionary is an Index to the Indo-European Table (English alphabetical). The Indo-European Table is organized alphabetically to the Etruscan words, and thus, with reference to its extended mission of producing a Concordance for the above cited languages we produced the Index. Words that are in smaller type (Times-Roman 10pt) have been incorporated in our Indo-European Table.

The article centers on the etymological examination of the ethnic terms "Basque" and "baskles". The first derives from Old Spanish and Old Castilian basko/vasco, while the second is recorded in one of the Middle English manuscripts. The Kartvelian languages decipher both names easily, which can only be done by a common substrate layer.

"Kartvelian-Sumerian-Egyptian Linguoculturology" offers readers a unique opportunity to get acquainted with a new look at old problems, make use of novel ways of solving various issues, and building a logical, harmonious, and continuous picture of our past outlining, at the same time, its perspectives for future studies.
"Kartvelian-Sumerian-Egyptian Linguoculturology" is a scholarly “adventure” of the manuscript that was found in the Bamiyan caves (Afghanistan) and taken to the British Museum for assessment and possible purchase. The manuscript had tiny stone seals engraved carefully and attached to several pages of the manuscript whose upper registers featured two letter-signs of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet – Ghani and Doni. A detailed paleographic analysis of the Bamiyan and Kartuli Asomtavruli letters made it necessary to include a number of scholarly fields into the study. These included Assyriology, Egyptology, historical linguistics, paleography, history, archaeology, ethnology, and Kartvelology.
A comprehensive scrutiny of various graphic and semantic issues of the Bamyian and Asomtavruli letter-signs through the mentioned fields uncovered concealed sacred and codified relations of the Kartuli Asomtavruli alphabet with the Phoenician and Greek alphabets, with Sumerian and Egyptian royal and divine insignia, various symbols, cuneiform letters, hieroglyphs, and many more. A complex methodology combining traditional linguistic and culturological methods with the means and techniques of the ancient esoteric science of the Kabbalah deciphered and uncovered the Kartvelian origin of numerous language items related to the discussed problems.
The work is in Georgian and has a long summary in English at the end.

Etruscan, the language of the people that dominated central and northern Italy from prehistoric time until the rise of Rome, has hitherto not been entirely deciphered. The riddle posed by the nature of the tongue of the early masters of Rome remains a permanent irritant; the more so since the solution to this enigma would help shed a new light on the early history of Mediterranean civilisation. The present approach focuses on a structural comparison of Etruscan with the South-Caucasian (Kartvelian) language family. We find a complete concordance with Kartvelian of the whole system of the attested Etruscan casual terminations, but also an identity of their usage, which is so unusual and complex as to exclude any explanation by coincidence. We also find a compelling number of core cognates and the possibility of applying a typological cross-verification: by using grammatical patterns from one of the two compared systems one is able to predict similar patterns in the other.

"Praise and Glory to the Kartuli Language" is regarded to be a prophetic piece of poetry foretelling the resurrection of the Kartvelian language and people with the Second Coming of the Lord. It is dated by the 10th century, copyist Ioane Zosime. Heated discussions have been going on ever since the manuscripts (4 copies) were discovered in the middle of the 19th century. There are several translations of the verse. I offer mine.

Монография является первым обобщающим типологическим исследованием префиксальной перфективации — феномена, до сих пор получившего подробное освещение лишь в славянских языках. В книге на синхронном уровне рассматривается материал славянских и балтийских языков, идиша, немецкого, венгерского, осетинского, а также картвельских языков — грузинского, сванского, мегрельского и лазского. Подробно изучаются морфологические свойства глагольных префиксов (превербов), их семантика, особенности семантики и функционирования превербных глаголов, устройство аспектуальных систем. Полученные эмпирические данные подвергаются количественному анализу, позволяющему выделить две области кластеризации систем префиксального перфектива — славянскую и кавказскую, — различающиеся набором харак-теризующих их признаков. Отдельно исследуются диахрония систем превербов и перфективации в рассматриваемых языковых семьях, возможные типологические параллели в других ареалах и типы наблюдаемых в этой области контактных явлений, для чего привлекается материал ряда миноритарных идиомов (цыганских, славянских, балтийских, балканороманских, финно-угорских). Делаются эмпирически обоснованные выводы о соотношении генетически унаследованного, универсально-типологического и контактного в наблюдаемом ареальном распределении систем префиксального перфектива в языках Центральной и Восточной Европы и Кавказа.

Yuri B. Koryakov
Atlas of the Languages of the World. Romance languages
Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS, 2001. — 21 pp.
incl. 13 multicoloured maps, 280x200 mm

This set is the first issue of the "Atlas of the Languages of the World" (ALW) series. It concerns the Romance branch of the Indo-European languages and consists of 13 maps. ALW is a serial publication prepared at the Institute of Linguistics as part of Languages of the World project. It originated to the map-making for the Languages of the World Encyclopaedia published in Russian.

Funde, Eigennamen und Schriftzeichen beweisen Roms lange Zugehörigkeit zur etruskischen Kultur. Die historisch faßbaren Anfänge des Etruskertums in Italien fallen mit der mythischen  Gründungzeit Roms (datiert auf 753 v. Chr.) zusammen. Die Sage berichtet vom korinthisch-etruskischen Ursprung der letzten römische Könige und von Einfällen der Etrusker unter dem König von Clusium Lars Porsenna nach dem Sturz der Tarquinier.  Die zwei römischen Gründungsmythen, die Äneas- und die Romulus-Sage, bezeugen die enge Verbindung Roms mit den etruskischen Nachbarn. Von den sieben sagenhaften Königen Roms, von Romulus bis Tarquinius Superbus, waren vier etruskischer Herkunft. Romulus ist der mythische Ahnherr der *Ruma, eines aus lat. Roma erschlossenen Geschlechternamens. Die erschlossene etruskische Form von Romulus lautet *Rumle. Von ihm leiten sich auch die Gentilizien Romulius bzw. Romilius ab. Auf die Romulii oder Romilii ist auch die erste der  sechzehn ältesten römischen Landtribus, die Romulia zurückzuführen. Remus gilt als der Ahnherr der Remmii, eines Geschlechts, das es wohl im ältesten Rom gegeben haben muß. Dem Gentilnamen liegt der etruskische Name  Rem-ne oder Rem-ni zugrunde. Von diesem Gentilizium leiten sich in und um Rom die Toponyme Rem-ona und Rem-oria her. Tyrrhener  und Römer wurden von den Griechen häufig synonym benutzt: Tyrrhenoì  è Rhomaîoi („Tyrrhener oder Römer“), ebenso wie Tyrrhenía è Italía. Einige Sprachelemente seien zusätzlich genannt: Im Etruskischen lauten die Namensbezeichnungen für Rom Ruma, für Römer Rumach, für Troja Truia, für Trojaner Truial. In der Frühzeit herrschte ein Priesterkönig (lauchme oder lochume, lat. lucumo) in jeder etruskischen Stadt, ein Titel, der möglicherweise auf die Heilskönige und Richter der nordostgeorgischen Bergstämme verweist, die häufig den Namen Luchumi trugen.

Das etruskische Erbe Roms gelangte erst Jahrhunderte später, während des Humanismus und in der Renaissance wieder zum Vorschein. Bei der Hinwendung zur Antike in der Rinascita spielte in der Toskana und in Latium, vor allem in Florenz und Viterbo, die Etruscheria, die Begeisterung für die Etrusker, eine besondere Rolle. Das Etruskertum diente als Modell gesellschaftlicher Erneuerung und fand Eingang in die kulturellen Programme der Renaissancefürsten, nicht zuletzt  der Medici. Der römische Baumeister Vitruv hatte  in seinem Augustus gewidmeten Werk De architectura  die tuskische Säulenordnung beschrieben. Diese Schrift regte die Renaissancearchitekten Andrea Palladio und Giorgio Vasari an. Der Palladianismus bildet zwei Jahrhunderte später eine der wichtigsten Stilrichtungen des Klassizismus. Durch die Lektüre von Palladio inspiriert, errichtete Thomas Jefferson sein Haus „Monticello“ mit toskanischem Portikus – die  erste toskanische Villa in der Neuen Welt.  Den Etruskern verdankt das  abendländischen Denken  schließlich  eine zentrale Kategorie – die Person.

Los 40 términos más estables determinados por Holman et al. (2008) de la “Lista de Swadesh” original de 100 voces del vocabulario nuclear básico que (salvo unos pocos excepcionales casos) no son adoptadas por familias de lenguas diferentes, y otras 23 voces de la Lista de Swadesh original, fueron reordenadas desde los términos más estables (no sustituibles por términos foráneos de familias diferentes) a los menos estables. Esta lista, estadísticamente, es igual de significativa que la lista original de Swadesh de 100 términos y su reordenamiento por voces más estables la convierte en una herramienta muy poderosa para las comparativas entre lenguas y familias. Si dos lenguas cualquieras comparadas con esta lista comparten (según Swadesh) más de un 36% de coincidencias, puede sostenerse que estuvieron emparentadas dentro de una misma familia, aunque tal parentesco sea remoto en el tiempo. Obviamente, mientras más alto sea el porcentaje de coincidencias (mejor si es por encima del 50%), más cercano será el parentesco.
-------------------------------------
Comentario
-------------------------------------
La comparativa favorece con diferencia a las lenguas Transeurasiáticas-Altaicas (Túrquicas, Mongoles, Tungúsicas, Japónica y Coreánica) que ocupan más de un 80% de la comparativa, siguiéndole en orden frecuencial (con pocas diferencias en los porcentajes) las Dravidianas, Sino-Caucasianas, Kartvelianas, Urálicas, Yeniseanas, Sino-Tibetanas y en menor grado las Afrasiáticas. Puesto que es difícil (por no decir imposible) explicar tan elevado número de coincidencias del vocabulario básico de voces estables con términos de la macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica como “préstamos” o producto del mero azar, la hipótesis de Michel Morván (1995-2002) de que el Euskara no es una lengua aislada y que, de hecho, sería una lengua Eurasiática muy antigua, parece más que probable.
----------------------------------------------
Esta comparativa de voces estables, según las 40 voces más estables determinadas por Holman et al. (2008), y otras 23 de la Lista de Swadesh original, apuntan a un más que verosímil parentesco entre la lengua Euskara (y probablemente también la Ibera de acuerdo a los pocos términos iberos que hemos podido incluir) con la macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica. Si el Pre-Proto-Euskara era una lengua Proto-Eurasiana, tal como sostiene Morvan, todo apunta a que esta se hallaba más cercana a las lenguas Transeurasiáticas-Altaicas que a las de las restantes familias eurasiáticas.

En cuanto al Ibero, si bien es imposible de momento hacer una comparativa de su vocabulario básico estable, hay suficientes indicios para considerar como verosímil una relación de parentesco con el Euskara, aunque remota (nunca como hermanas o como madre o hija una de la otra), lo que permite inferir, al menos como posibilidad, que igualmente se pueda incluir el Ibero dentro de la macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica. De hecho, todo lo que mejor se ha podido determinar (casi hay consenso) sobre su morfo-tipología, fonosintáctica, afijaciones, formas verbales y léxico especializado (determinado por combinatoria interna y contexto favorable) encuentran las mejores explicaciones siempre —al igual que pasa con el Euskara— a través de las mismas lenguas de la macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica, y en menor medida a través de algunas lenguas Caucasianas.

Referencias

Bengtson, John, ‘Basque etymology’, Compiled by John Bengtson, 2015-2019 http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\sinocauc\basqet&first=1
Cengiz Erman, Arif, «Türklerin Gerçek Tarihi. Türk Dili ve Tarihi Üzerine Tezler», Urzeni; Edición: 1, 2019.
Díaz-Montexano, Georgeos, PERRO. El origen etimológico íbero-altaico o paleolítico del nombre del ‘perro’ en el español, The Epigraphic Society, Enero de 2017. https://www.academia.edu/35819718/
Holman et al., ‘Explorations in automated language classification.’ November 2008Folia Linguistica 42(3-4). DOI:10.1515/FLIN.2008.331
Koşay, H.Z., «Dil mukayeselerine göre Basklarla Türklerin temasları, göç yolları ve zamanı hakkında.” Belleten 84.521–60, 1957.
Morvan, Michel, ‘DICTIONNAIRE ÉTYMOLOGIQUE DE LA LANGUE BASQUE’, UMR 5478 DU CNRS (2022). http://projetbabel.org/basque/basque_dictionnaire_etymologique_2022_02.pdf
Robbeets, Martine; Bisang, Walter, ‘Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian languages and beyond,’ Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 2014.
Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia (OEH) https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?option=com_oehberria&task=bilaketa&Itemid=413&lang=eu

Pie de foto: Una muestra de dos de las 28 páginas de tablas comparativas que se pueden ver en el PDF https://atlantisng.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Lista-Swadesh-Eusko-Ibero-Transeurasiatica-de-voces-mas-estables-de-Holman-et-al-2008-y-su-comparacion-con-el-Griego.pdf

The paper deals with Base/Reduplicant relationship in Kartvelian (South
Caucasian) echo-word constructions as a determining condition in their classification
with special reference to copying direction. Base/Reduplicant relationship is pivotal in
reduplicative processes because a resulting entity is built of the Base and the Reduplicant. Hence, two types of echo reduplication are identified: Type 1 - L > R (Base-initial)
and Type 2 – R > L (Reduplicant-initial). The data from the Kartvelian languages have
highlighted the necessity of subdivision of echo-pairs into different types. The classification pattern, adhered to in the present paper, may be applied to similar phenomena
cross-linguistically, provided that various types and/or sub-types occur in a language.

This paper compares the expression of information structure in the three indigenous language families of the Caucasus (West Caucasian, Nakh-Daghestanian and Kartvelian) by means of the concepts of focus, contrast, topic and givenness. I concentrated on constituent order and the use of particles, thereby largely ignoring other formal means such as intonation. When comparing all three Caucasian language families we can see a number of parallels in the way information structure is expressed.
First of all, there are obvious (and expectable) similarities in the constituent order at the clause level. All three language families show a clear preference for SOV, but other orders are, in general, possible, whereby Ubykh and Laz are more rigid than the other languages (which might be due to Turkish influence on both languages). The major focus position is preverbal, but postverbal focus is also attested and although focal items are frequently positioned in adjacency to the verb this is not a strict requirement. All three language families allow for verb-initial order for presentational focus in introductory statements of narratives.
By contrast, at the phrasal level we find a sharp difference between West Caucasian with its prenominal and postnominal modifiers as well as nominal complexes on the one hand side and Kartvelian and Nakh-Daghestanian language on the other hand side. Only the latter two families make use of postnominal modifiers for emphasis, contrast or focus, although their syntactic status as belonging to the preceding head noun and forming one NP with it is rather doubtful.
The second major parallel is the existence of cleft-like and pseudo-cleft constructions that normally express constituent focus. Although the exact syntactic nature of these constructions has been investigated only for a handful of languages and their status as genuine cleft constructions is rather doubtful, we can generalize that these constructions have a bipartite structure without necessarily being biclausal and make use of subordinate clause structures that are otherwise found in relative clauses. Cleft-like and pseudo-cleft constructions are commonly found in WH-questions, in particular in West Caucasian and a number of Nakh-Daghestanian languages (e.g. Ingush, Avar, Udi). In general, the extent of use of these constructions varies from family to family, but they seem to be most frequent in West Caucasian because they represent the default strategies for the formation of content questions.
The third similarity concerns the frequent use of enclitics and suffixes for information-structuring purposes, but also dedicated focus particles in some languages. In a great number of languages, modal markers, interrogative markers, additives, scalar-additives, discourse markers, and markers with grammatical meaning (person, tense, negation, etc.) are used as focus-sensitive particles and usually placed after the item they scope over or after the head of the phrase.

Several basic-lexicon etymologies, with regular sound correspondences, suggest Hurro-Urartian (HU) might be derived from (or related to) Proto-Indo-European (PIE). Preliminary evidence suggests North-Caucasian (NC) languages might also be related to PIE – in particular, to Iranian languages and Armenian.