Bengtson, John D. and Corinna Leschber
It has been noticed that the most comprehensive etymological dictionary of North Caucasian languages (NCED) has repeatedly been disparaged, and even totally ignored, due to alleged deficiencies of the lexicon. One also finds that some critics who dismiss this dictionary do not enumerate the shortcomings of the book themselves, but simply cite two reviews, one by J. Nichols and another by the late W. Schulze. Moreover, we find that the Nichols review has not been published and is not accessible to the examination of scholars, and the Schulze review, while citing a number of disagreements, is far from advocating the disregard of this volume but instead claims that it "belongs in the bookcase of anyone interested in etymological research". It is also observed that more positive reviews, for ex-ample those by J. C. Catford (pre-publication), M. E. Alekseev, Ja. G. Testelec, and V. Chiri-kba (Cirikba) are overlooked by the detractors. These circumstances are examined in this paper, with the conclusion that the NCED, like any pioneering work, is not a permanent solution but a set of hypotheses that will have to be tested and modified, where necessary, over the coming decades. It does not deserve to be dismissed or ignored, but rather en-gaged with and discussed in the pursuit of better solutions to etymological problems of North Caucasian languages.