Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 48] the meaning 'to be hot' is translated as tã ǀʼi, literally 'to feel fire', but textual examples in [Bleek 1956: 292] do not explicitly confirm this idiom as the main antonym for 'cold'. For 'warm', [Bleek 1929: 90] yields !uːi = 'to burn, smart, ache' (see 'ashes' for more details), but this is probably incorrect; examples in [Bleek 1956: 449] clearly indicate negative semantic connotations ('burnt', 'aching', etc.) rather than the required positive associations. The likeliest candidate for ǀXam 'warm' is kːáˤo (L. Lloyd), kːauːˤ ~ kːauˤ-kːáuˤ (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 80], but a convenient equivalent for 'hot' is still missing.
ǀǀNg!ke:ǀǀoˤnaˤ #1
Bleek 1956: 586. Quoted as ǀǀoːnàːˤ in [Bleek 1929: 48], ǀǀonà in [Bleek 2000: 20]. The item is not quite trustworthy, being attested in but one example: ǀǀõẽ ǀǀoˤnaˤ "the sun is hot" [Bleek 1956: 586]; for contrast, cf. ǀǀõĩ haiːi "the sun is warm" [Bleek 1956: 56]. It is not clear just how reliable these particular translations are.
Maingard 1937: 243. Attested in the phrase ǀǀʼũĩ ɕeŋ hãː-i "the sun is hot". Transcribed as háːʔī in [Doke 1936: 63], with the meaning glossed as 'warm'.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102. Attested in the phrase iŋ kʰuru-wa "I am warm". It is unclear whether ǀǀXegwi had a precise distinction between the meanings 'warm' and 'hot'. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Quoted as kuruwa 'warm' in [Bleek 1929: 90] and as kurúwa 'to be warm' in [Bleek 1956: 107].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of reliable attestation in some languages and lexical instability in others.
Bleek 1956: 427, 431, 457. Transcribed as !ʰoaː ~ !ʰwàː ~ !wa by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʰwaː in [Bleek 1929: 90]. See under 'rain' for more details on this stem.
Bleek 1956: 394, 402, 423, 572. Emphatic forms: !ʼʰa-gǝn ~ !ʼʰa-ke ~ !ʼʰaːŋ ~ !aː-gǝn ~ !aːŋ. Quoted as !ʰaː in [Bleek 1929: 90]. Phonological variation between !ʰaː ~ !ʼʰa also acknowledged in [Bleek 2000: 18]; it may be partially due to failure to distinguish between phonetically similar 'water' and 'rain' q.v., partially to non-trivial articulation of the click efflux (cf. the presence of uvular aspirated articulation in the professionally recorded correlate for present day Nǀuu).
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Quoted as qʰaː in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 106]. An entirely different form, šaː, with a rare plural variant šaː-ŋ, is also quoted in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102, 111]. According to the authors, "the two forms... are not synonymous, but the precise difference in significance has not been accurately determined" [ibid.]. Both of these synonymous or quasi-synonymous forms are also attested in [Bleek 1929: 90] as ǀǀʰaː and šaː (without the erroneously transcribed lateral click, cf. kʰaː 'to water' [ibid.]). Quoted as kʰaː ~ ǀǀʰa in [Bleek 1956: 88, 572] (this time, both variants are quoted in the nominal meaning 'water'); as ša in [Bleek 1956: 177].
Analysis of the few available textual contexts shows that kʰaː may, perhaps, rather refer to 'drinking water', whereas ša denotes 'basin water', cf.: (a) n ǀoːwa, kʰaː n ǀeo "I am thirsty, water is wanting" [Bleek 1956: 88]; sa ne kʰaː "give me water" [Ziervogel 1955: 46]; (b) kan ǀǀowa ke e ša "he stands in the water" [Bleek 1956: 177]; iɲa šaː gi=tʼama "I am handsome", literally "I am the water of Lake Chrissie" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 117] (but also a-me ʔa=xʼẽĩ šaː "do not drink water" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 116]; context unknown, perhaps "do not drink lake-water"?).
Bleek 1937: 203; Bleek 1956: 88. Meaning glossed simply as 'water', whereas for the alleged click-containing variant ǀǀʰàːa [Bleek 1937: 216] the meaning is glossed as 'water, rain'. This, as well as the uniqueness of the "variation" and, possibly, the difference in tonal characteristics, brings on the suspicion that we are actually dealing with two etymologically different words: kʰá 'water' and ǀǀʰà 'rain, rain-water'. However, in [Bleek 1956: 572], ǀǀʰàːa is encountered once in the context "he drinks water" (whereas 'rain', without textual examples, is transcribed as ǀǀʰàːˤa with additional pharyngealization, making the picture even more confusing). In [Bleek 1929: 90], 'water' is simply written as ǀǀʰa, without any non-click variants. Allegedly, this could be a transcriptional error (particularly if the original consonant, as in ǀǀXegwi, was actually a uvular qʰ-).
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: The form of this word in Modern Nǀuu, with its uvular aspirated click efflux, can be viewed as archaic (uvular articulation is further confirmed by ǀǀXegwi qʰaː in the transcription of Lanham & Hallowes). Deletion of click influx in ǀǀXegwi is perfectly regular (cf. 'road', etc.), however, the situation with the Lower Nǂossob branch is less clear, because normally the alveolar click there is preserved. Most likely, we are dealing here with a sporadic process of click loss, possibly determined by context (e. g. click loss before a former uvular efflux?).
Bleek 1956: 168; Bleek 1929: 90. Exclusive stem. In [Bleek 2000: 21], besides the regular si, an alternate variant ci is also mentioned, but is not confirmed in any other sources.
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Cf. also the emphatic (absolute) form: ʔi-ʔe; the object form ʔiye ~ ye; the possessive form ye [Ziervogel 1955: 45-47]. The absolute form is quoted as ʔi-ʔe ~ i-ʔe in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108]. Quoted as i in [Bleek 1929: 90] and [Bleek 1956: 67]. According to all known sources, there is no distinction between inclusive and exclusive pronouns in ǀǀXegwi.
Story 1999: 24. Not listed in the vocabulary, but cf.: ci ɑ̀ kʼi=ʘwiː "we eat meat". Probably an exclusive stem (although Story does not elicit such an opposition explicitly).
Proto-!Wi:*si
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi, where the old inclusive/exclusive opposition seems to have been neutralized in favor of the original inclusive pronoun. Reconstruction shape: The form *si is attested almost everywhere without change; Lower Nǂossob ci has to be regarded as a "fortition" (cf. the same situation with 'sit', etc.).
Bleek 1956: 67. Emphatic form: i-i ~ i-tǝn, possessive form: i ~ i-ta. Transcribed as i ~ iː, possessive form: i-ka by W. Bleek. Quoted as i ~ i-i ~ iː-tǝn in [Bleek 1929: 90]. Inclusive stem.
Bleek 1956: 67; Bleek 2000: 21. Inclusive stem. The rare variant e is also mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 90] and confirmed in [Bleek 1956: 36], said to be "only used before particle he".
Story 1999: 32. Cf.: i cʼau kʸɛ "we milk them". The stem is probably inclusive (considering external data). Story's vocabulary gives the equivalent for 'we' as i-tʸóː a [Story 1999: 23], where a is probably a verbal copula, and tʸóː is some sort of emphatic morpheme.
Proto-!Wi:*i
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: Monovocalic *i is preserved everywhere and is automatically projected onto the proto-level.
Bleek 1956: 23, 210. This interrogative pronoun is a transparent compound of cʼa 'thing' [ibid.] + basic interrogative morpheme de (L. Lloyd, W. Bleek: dːé). In [Bleek 1929: 91] a whole bunch of different variants is quoted: cʼa=dɛ ~ cʼa=ba ~ xa=dɛ ~ -ba ~ -dɛ. However, textual examples in [Bleek 1956] rather suggest that ba and xa represent auxiliary clitics whose exact meaning is difficult to establish; only de (dɛ) comes through clearly as the main interrogative morpheme in ǀXam. See also 'who'.
Bleek 1956: 26, 46, 93, 279. Quoted as kisi in [Bleek 1929: 91]; the alternate variant, -dʸe, is incorrectly given as a synonym, because this postpositional lexeme is generally used as an adverbial interrogative ('where?', etc.; see [Bleek 2000: 23]). The forms are clearly polymorphemic in origin and may be analyzed as reflecting an original *di-si, where di- is the interrogative component (= -dʸe 'where?'; consonantal alternation dʸ- ~ g- ~ k- reflects palatalization of the original dental) and -si is either a fossilized deictic stem or the remnant of an older word meaning 'thing'. What remains completely obscure is the click-containing variant ɡǀi-si. Considering Bleek's remark that speakers of the language occasionally drop clicks and the multiple examples that confirm this, one would be tempted to posit *ɡǀi as the original form, and gi ~ ki as its later permutations. External data, however, speak very strongly against such a solution: no click-containing interrogatives are found anywhere in South Khoisan (except for ǀHaasi). The form is more likely to represent some obscure contraction with another morpheme or, perhaps, a rare case of secondary ("expressive"?) click formation.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:ǀʰa ~ ǀi2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀ-
Distribution: The old interrogative morpheme seems to have only been preserved in the Lower Nǂossob branch (this is primarily supported by external comparison with Taa languages), or, to be more precise, only in ǀHaasi, since the situation in ǀʼAuni is unknown. Replacements: The main interrogative morpheme in Narrow !Wi is *TV, where T = coronal explosive (usually voiced d, less frequently voiceless t or aspirated tʰ) and V is usually a front vowel (e or i). It is usually combined with additional morphemes, such as ǀXam cʼa 'thing', to express the meaning 'what?' (= 'which-thing?'). However, this morpheme finds no parallels in the Lower Nǂossob data, where the basic equivalent for 'what?' has (in ǀHaasi) the structure "dental click with zero efflux + vowel", which is furthermore corroborated by external data (Taa). Because of these external parallels, it makes more sense to postulate a replacement in Narrow !Wi, although its nature remains obscure at the moment.
Bleek 1956: 450. Transcribed as !úi-ta by W. Bleek. Quoted as !úiːta in [Bleek 1929: 91]. The latter source adds two secondary synonyms: (a) ǀkʼɔːwa = ǀoːˤwa ~ ǀxʼóːˤwa (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 321]; (b) ǀǀxàˤŋ-ǀǀxàˤŋ = ǀǀxáˤŋ-ǀǀxáˤŋ (L. Lloyd) [Bleek 1956: 632]. Item (a) is represented by two dubious textual examples and glossed as 'pale', 'red' (!) in [Bleek 1956]; item (b) is accompanied by only one equally dubious example. Examples for !ui-ta are more numerous and definitive, cf. ha ǀǀitǝn xʼauki tʌm ʘwa !úita, hi-ta !úitǝn-!úitakǝn ǀǀeǀǀeːya !ʰwaitǝn "its juice is not a little white, its whiteness resembles milk" [Bleek 1956: 450] etc.
Maingard 1937: 243. Also transcribed with facultative prenasalization (as ɳ!ʼuɾi-ya). The word has no known parallels within South Khoisan and is best regarded as a straightforward borrowing from Khoekhoe (cf. Nama !ʼuri 'white').
Nǀuu:!ʼuri-a-1
Sands et al. 2006. See notes on ǂKhomani.
ǀǀXegwi:ša3
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Quoted as šaː 'be white' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115].
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of attestation in some languages, transparent borrowed origins in others, and instability in the remaining ones.
Bleek 1956: 447 (quoted there in the emphatic variant: !u=de-kǝn). Quoted as !u=dɛ xa (with an extra particle) in [Bleek 1929: 91]. Like the corresponding inanimate pronoun, a clear compound of !u(i) 'person' q.v. with the basic interrogative morpheme =de; there is also a suppletive plural stem !e=dɛ xa [Bleek 1929: 91].
Bleek 1956: 240. Highly uncertain; attested only in one example - tú e sɛ kia "who comes there?" ([Bleek 1956: 240]; [Bleek 2000: 23]), in which D. Bleek sees three out of four morphemes ("tu e followed by ki") constituting a single interrogative complex. The first morpheme, tu, is almost certainly related to tu 'man' q.v., meaning that the original interrogative morpheme is either e or ki(a). On the other hand, comparison with ǂKhomani data shows that ǀǀNg!ke's closest linguistic relatives already treat tu- as the main interrogative segment, and this may have been the case in ǀǀNg!ke as well.
Maingard 1937: 247. The suffixal component -xai is frequently met in interrogatives, although its function is not quite clear. Transcribed as ɕúxāi in [Doke 1936: 71].
Ziervogel 1955: 36. Quoted as towa, pl. twa-ŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118].
ǀ'Auni:sa #3
Bleek 1937: 197. Only attested in the composite interrogative sa-ka 'whose?', where -ka is the general possessive particle, so it may be assumed that sa is simply 'who?'.
Bleek 1956: 268. Emphatic form: ǀʼaːi-ti-kǝn. Transcribed as ǀʼáːi-ti ~ ǀʼaːi-tye ~ ǀʼái-tyi, emphatic form: ǀʼaːiː-ti-kǝn by W. Bleek. Also attested in the same meaning is the compound form !wi ǀʼai-ti, literally 'person-woman' [Bleek 1956: 466]. Internal structure of the lexeme must be complex (otherwise, it would violate the basic rules of Khoisan phonotactics), although the element -ti is not known to be a productive suffix in ǀXam. The "bare" root, however, may be seen not as ǀʼai, but rather as simply ǀʼa, since it is also found in the compound form !wi ǀʼa 'girl' [Bleek 1956: 267]. The plural form is suppletive: ǀáː-gǝn (L. Lloyd), ǀáː-gǝn, emphatic form: ǀáː-ka-kǝn (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 296] (an entirely different root, since the click effluxes do not match).
Bleek 1956: 268, 274, 278; Bleek 1929: 92. The phonetic variation between -ti and -ki reflects one and the same phoneme (a palatal stop); the variation between click effluxes (glottal stop vs. voiced articulation) is harder to understand. The plural form, as in ǀXam, is suppletive: ǀa-gǝn ~ ǀaː-gǝn [Bleek 1956: 296]; cf. also ǀaŋ id. ([Bleek 1956: 300]; in [Bleek 1929: 92], this form is mentioned as singular, but the only textual example in [Bleek 1956] gives a plural usage). As in ǀXam, the "bare" root ǀʼa is discovered in bound forms: cf. ǀǀe ǀʼa 'girl', ǀǀõẽːn ǀʼaː 'old woman' [Bleek 1956: 268].
Maingard 1937: 239, 253. Functions both as the independent noun 'woman' and the semi-suffix 'female', attached to names of animals (e. g. !ai ǀʼaiɕe 'female gemsbok', etc.). Transcribed as ǀēiɕī in [Doke 1936: 63].
Ziervogel 1955: 36. Distinct from gyeiŋ, pl. gyaŋ 'female' [Ziervogel 1955: 44] (the same word is quoted as qʼiŋ, phonetically [qʼǝiŋ] 'be a female' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]). Cf., however, also the phrase haː kwi-qʼiŋ "it is a woman" in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102]), where kwi-qʼiŋ literally = 'person + female'. D. Bleek's data on this Swadesh item are confusing. In [Bleek 1929: 92], 'woman' is translated as ǀǀxeːn, pl. ǀǀaː-ze. The first form, re-quoted as ǀǀxeːŋ in [Bleek 1956: 635], may represent a corruption of *qʼiŋ 'female'. The second form is a priori dubious as a "plural" form, since -ze (= Ziervogel's -zi) is, by definition, a suffixal morpheme with a singulative meaning. In [Bleek 1956], we find two entries in its place: (a) ǀʼaːze 'woman' [Bleek 1956: 271] = Ziervogel's ǀazi; (b) ǀǀʼaː-si ~ ǀǀʼa-kǝn 'woman, female', e. g. in ǀǀwi ǀǀʼaːsi "female dog", !xa-ǀʼi ǀǀʼakǝn "female sheep" [Bleek 1956: 517]. The examples show that the meaning of the root ǀǀʼa- is rather 'female' than 'woman' per se, but it is definitely a different word from qʼiŋ. One possible source is borrowing from a Central Khoisan source, although the Proto-Central Khoisan root *ɡǀǀae 'female' has a different click efflux.
Bleek 1937: 210. Plural form: ǀan. Quoted as ǀɛ̃ in [Bleek 1929: 92]; as ǀẽ, pl. ǀʌn in [Bleek 1956: 307]. Meaning glossed as 'woman, female' in all sources. Cf. also ɡǀeː-ki 'wife, woman' [Bleek 1937: 209] - a formation from the same root.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, albeit in different morphological variants. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀʼaː-ti 'woman'; ǀǀKxau ǀa-ti ~ ǀa-u, pl. ǀaː-kn [Bleek 1956: 270, 302]. Reconstruction shape: The situation here is tricky. The paradigm that is reliably attested in Modern Nǀuu allegedly reflects a simple plural stem *ǀa- and a "diphthongized" singular stem *ǀa-i- (> *ǀe-). However, it is impossible to ignore the evidence from old records of ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke, where the plural *ǀa- is opposed to singular *ǀʼa-i-, with a glottalized rather than a zero click efflux. Since the evidence comes from several different sources, it cannot be attributed to mistaken transcriptions: either we deal with some kind of old suppletivism (*ǀʼa- 'woman' vs. *ǀa- 'women', with subsequent mergers in several languages), or with the results of morphophonological processes (e. g. the singular form could have originally been *ǀa-ʔV, with subsequent transposition of glottalic articulation to the click efflux; however, such a "suffix" would remain unclear). Currently, we just list both variants as potentially reconstructible for the proto-stage.
NUMBER:100
WORD:yellow
ǀXam:
Not attested properly, although cf. ǀainya in [Bleek 1929: 94] = ǀaːiːn ~ ǀaːiːn-ya (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 297]; see under 'green' on the dubious character of this word (the only example for the meaning 'yellow' is ha cʼaxéitǝn doaˤ ǀainya au tukǝn di "his eyes were yellow with angry actions", which certainly does not qualify as diagnostic).
Bleek 1956: 299. Quoted as ǀàla in [Bleek 1929: 94]. Somewhat dubious, since the word is not backed by any textual examples to verify its exact meaning.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:!aː2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Bleek 1956: 579. Transcribed as ǀǀʰwéi-tǝn by W. Bleek. Secondary synonym: táŋ [Bleek 1956: 291], attested only in W. Bleek's records and quoted as taŋ in [Bleek 1929: 37]. The latter source also adds ǀeː as one more synonym, but this word is glossed as 'there, yonder, far, that, here' in [Bleek 1956: 306] and clearly represents a pronominal deictic stem rather than a separate adjective (see under 'that' for more details).
Bleek 1956: 60. Quoted as hǝrú in [Bleek 1929: 37]. Secondary synonym: !wéin-ya ([Bleek 1956: 464]; [Bleek 1929: 37]). The exact difference between the two words is unclear (cf. ŋ ǀǀŋ héru ɳǀǀa "my house is far", but sa a !wéinya "the eland is far" [Bleek 1956: 60, 464]).
Maingard 1957: 268. Extracted from a phrase in which the word is transcribed as ŋhaɾu; however, the initial ŋ- is likely to represent a sandhi-type development (in the VP ɳǀãũ-(ŋ)haɾu "marry far").
Bleek 1929: 37; Bleek 1956: 585. The same sources also list the probably related form ǀǀũĩ, glossed as 'far' in [Bleek 1929: 37] and as 'very far' in [Bleek 1956: 591]. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955] or any of Lanham & Hallowes' papers, therefore, somewhat dubious.
Distribution: Preserved in ǀXam, possibly in ǀǀXegwi and also potentially in ǀHaasi. Replacements: In this situation, there are two potential candidates for Proto-!Wi 'far'. The most obvious one would be *haru, an isogloss between the Nǀuu cluster and ǀʼAuni. However, areal influence of Nǀuu on ǀʼAuni is well confirmed by numerous other cases, and this particular case could also simply reflect a Nǀuu borrowing into ǀʼAuni. On the other hand, the main attested equivalent for 'far' in ǀXam may easily be correlated with the form in ǀǀXegwi (dubious because of scarce attestation, but attested nonetheless), and perhaps even with ǀHaasi n=!wĩ, assuming that the alveolar click in ǀHaasi was erroneously mistranscribed instead of the lateral one (admittedly, this is a somewhat feeble assumption, since no confirming examples of such confusion have been found). The clinching argument here is external comparison: Proto-!Wi *ǀǀoe is compatible with Taa forms (!Xóõ ǀǀqái 'far away', etc.), confirming that Nǀuu haru should be seen as an innovation in the meaning 'far', and that ǀʼAuni háru is either an independent innovation as well, or, more likely, a borrowing from Nǀuu. Reconstruction shape: It is unclear whether the nasalization (such as found in ǀǀXegwi ǀǀũĩ, etc.) is an inherent part of the root here or the result of contraction with a nasal suffix; external comparison would rather suggest the latter.
Bleek 1956: 472. Quoted as ɳ!ã̀ĩ in [Bleek 1929: 46]. In [Bleek 1956], the word is presented as polysemous: 'to be big / much / many / strong / heavy', with the meaning 'heavy' represented by only one textual example: ǂʼwi ɳ!ãĩˤ "the eggshell is heavy". Considering that in the meanings 'big, many, much' (see notes on 'many' for these meanings) the word is transcribed without pharyngealization, this may be a case of partial homophony rather than polysemy.
Not reconstructible due to relative scarcity of attestation and instability.
NUMBER:103
WORD:near
ǀXam:!ʼʰiːŋ ~ !ʼʰiːŋ-ya #1
Bleek 1956: 397. Transcribed as !ʼʰiːŋ ~ !ʼʰeːn-ya by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʼʰiːŋ in [Bleek 1929: 60]. The latter source also quotes the predicative stem ɡ!weːsiŋ 'to be near'; in [Bleek 1956: 391-392] it is already segmented into ɡ!weː 'to sling on, pass across, be opposite to, near to' + siŋ 'to sit, stay', and the basic meaning of the first stem is rather 'to be opposite to smth.' than 'to be near to smth.'. More problematic is the additional synonym ʘwurru ~ ʘwurru-kǝn (L. Lloyd), ʘurru (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 684, 686], also translated as 'to be near'; although it is not mentioned in [Bleek 1929], it is formally eligible for inclusion.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 60], two equivalents are listed: (a) kí, revealed in [Bleek 1956: 91] as a general morpheme indicating near deixis ('here'); (b) ɳǀǀa, whose real meaning is 'to stay', 'to be somewhere' [Bleek 1956: 611].
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǂʼeː2
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'be close, be nearby'.
ǀǀXegwi:tʼanaŋ3
Ziervogel 1955: 47. Attested in the phrase ʔe ʔi tʼanaŋ "near us", literally "at our near" (i. e. the word syntactically behaves like a noun).
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to relative scarcity of attestation and instability.
NUMBER:104
WORD:salt
ǀXam:ǂkʼòː1
Bleek 1956: 662. Quoted as ǂóː in [Bleek 1929: 71].
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǂxʼoː1
Miller et al. 2007: 60. Secondary synonym: ʓebe [Miller et al. 2009: 155], transcribed phonetically as [ɟɛβe]; this form is most likely a recent borrowing from Central Khoisan, where *debe ~ *dobe is one of the main terms for 'salt' or 'salt lick'. Cf. also ʓiβe ~ dyiβe 'salt' in [Westphal 1965: 144].
ǀǀXegwi:ǀʰe-zi2
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible, since the forms in ǀXam and Nǀuu very likely reflect areal borrowings from Khoekhoe.
Bleek 1956: 362, 368. Plural form: ǀʼu̯íttǝn. Said of people (ha ǀǀaxai ʘwa ɳǀe ǀʼwerriː "her younger sister is short") as well as objects (ha aː, !wa!waːgǝn ǀʼwittǝn "it is one whose legs are short") [ibid.]. Transcribed as ǀʼǘŕŕiː, plural: ǀʼúttǝn by W. Bleek. Transcribed as ǀʼwiri in [Bleek 1929: 74]. The latter source adds ǂʼeni as a secondary synonym, but the main meaning of this word is 'small' q.v.
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Said of people (ha kwi ʔe la čwe "it is a short person"). Quoted as čwiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 103]; as čũĩ in [Bleek 1929: 74] and [Bleek 1956: 236].
Distribution: An isogloss between Nǀuu, ǀǀXegwi, and ǀʼAuni, thus perfectly reconstructible on the Proto-!Wi level. Replacements: Etymologies of ǀXam ǀʼu̯erriː and ǀHaasi ǀɔ̃-si are unknown.
NUMBER:106
WORD:snake
ǀXam:ǀǀérri-tǝn tí #1
Bleek 1956: 570. Plural form: ǀǀérritǝn dːé. Quoted as ǀǀeritǝn-ti in [Bleek 1929: 77]. A composite form, plausibly analyzed as "round thing" (cf. ti 'place, thing, part' [Bleek 1956: 201] and ǀǀerritǝn-ǀǀerritǝn 'round' q.v.; real meaning is quite possibly 'to surround, encircle', hence "the thing that coils"). The analysis makes it clear that the form is euphemistic in origin; a possibly more archaic, non-euphemistic root is suggested as a synonym in ǀǀüi [Bleek 1929: 77] = ǀǀʰwí 'snake, cobra' [Bleek 1956: 579], quoted only within the compound ǀǀʰwi ɳǀaŋ 'cobra head, name of poison which is in the two glands, and used for poisoning arrows' and not at all reliable.
Bleek 1956: 338. Quoted as ǀkʼaːse in [Bleek 1929: 77]. The supporting example is ǀxʼase kú !we "snake which is black", suggesting that this may indeed be the generic term for 'snake'. In contrast, the alternative equivalent ǀkʼau [Bleek 1929: 77] ~ ǀxʼauː [Bleek 1956: 338] is glossed as 'long yellow snake', i. e. a specific kind. (Etymological connection between the two words is possible, but not self-evident).
Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 47. Judging by the form of the word, this may be a Bantuism, although the authors cannot identify the actual source; this is by no means a native South Khoisan word. (It is not entirely clear whether this is really the generic ǀǀXegwi term for 'snake', though).
Story 1999: 23. Probably a nominal derivative from cʼiː 'to bite' q.v.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀxʼa-
Distribution: A Nǀuu-ǀʼAuni isogloss (not likely to have been borrowed from the former into the latter because of morphological variations). Replacements: (a) In ǀXam, most likely replaced with a qualitative euphemism (see notes on ǀXam), thus {'round thing' > 'snake'}; (b) In ǀǀXegwi, probably replaced by a borrowing, although the source has not yet been identified; (c) ǀHaasi cʼiː-sa is transparently derived from cʼiː 'to bite' q.v., thus {'biter' > 'snake'}.
NUMBER:107
WORD:thin
ǀXam:
Not attested properly; possibly the same word as 'small' q.v., but this is hard to demonstrate based on available examples. In [Bleek 1929: 84], the word tʼãĩŋ is given in this meaning, but in [Bleek 1956: 188] it is only acknowledged with the semantics 'soft, supple', as well as the figurative meaning 'cunning' (= 'subtle').
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǀǀxʼui-a ~ ǀǀxʼui-si #1
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'thin person'.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Bleek 1937: 219. Quoted as ǂwɛː in [Bleek 1956: 666]. The form čʼuːse 'wind' in [Bleek 1929: 92] actually means 'to blow (of wind)' = cʼuː ~ cʼuːse [Bleek 1937: 207].
ǀHaasi:ɡʘûː-a2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂqʰoe
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀHaasi. Replacements: No obvious parallels are found in !Wi languages for the strange ǀHaasi form with an initial labial click. Its origin may be expressive (sound-symbolic reproduction of "blowing"?), but no factual evidence for this exists.
Not attested in newer sources, although cf. gúlí 'year' in [Westphal 1965: 143] (in any case, only treatable as a borrowing of Central Khoisan provenance).
Построить дерево