Bleek 1956: 581, 606. Transcribed as ǀǀo ~ ǀǀoː ~ ǀǀɔː ~ ǀǀxʼɔ́ː ~ ǀǀxʼɔːwà by W. Bleek. In [Bleek 1929: 35], this stem is only mentioned as the verb 'to dry' (transitive: ǀǀɔ́ː, intransitive: ǀǀɔ́ːwa), but there is no principal difference between verbal and adjectival roots in ǀXam, and Bleek's given equivalent for 'dry (adj.)': xʼɔro-kn = xʼɔ́ro-kǝn [Bleek 1956: 125] is supported by much fewer examples, always with the meaning 'dried (in the sun), shrivelled, burnt' rather than 'not wet'. Conversely, for ǀǀoː cf. such examples as: ɳǀǀaiŋ ǀǀaiːe se ǀǀɔː '...so that the inside of the house may dry'; ŋ tu ǀu-g ɳǀe ǀǀoː 'my mouth became dry', etc. [Bleek 1956: 581], showing that this word has a wider range of application. Cf. also ǀòːwa 'dry' (of bones?), illustrated by one dubious context in W. Bleek's records [Bleek 1956: 321]. We select as primary the word that is illustrated by the most examples (and also has the most immediate and explicit external correlations).
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 35], the adjective 'dry' is given as xʼoː, but the form is not confirmed in the larger dictionary [Bleek 1956] and may have been erroneous. The same source [Bleek 1929: 35] also states that the "S1" (ǀXam) forms for the verb 'to dry' (ǀǀɔ́ː, etc.) are the same for "S2" (ǀǀNg!ke), but, again, this is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956] (external data on Nǀuu shows, however, that this is probably true). Since both of the stems are dubious, we prefer to leave the slot empty.
Not attested. Cf., however, ǀǀoː 'thirsty' in [Bleek 1956: 581] (attested in the phrase n ǀǀoː kʰa "I am thirsty for water"); polysemy 'dry / thirsty' is typical for other !Kwi languages as well.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀxʼom2
Bleek 1937: 217; Bleek 1956: 607.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀo #
Distribution: Common for the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster, not attested elsewhere (unless the ǀʼAuni form is related, which is dubious). Replacements: ǀʼAuni ǀǀxʼom is consistently marked by D. Bleek as possessing a velar affricate efflux and a coda in -m, which makes it incompatible with the forms attested in ǀXam and Nǀuu despite general phonetic similarity. However, as a lexical replacement this term currently has no etymology. Theoretically, the ǀʼAuni form, as the only representative of the Lower Nǂossob branch, could also claim Proto-!Wi status in the basic meaning 'dry', but external parallels in Taa support the priority of the ǀXam-Nǀuu branch. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between ǀXam and Nǀuu are mostly trivial, although it is not clear why the word is sometimes transcribed with a velar affricate efflux in Bleek's ǀXam transcriptions.
Bleek 1956: 485; Bleek 1929: 35. Plural form: ɳ!u-ɳ!ú-ntu. Transcribed as ɳ!u-ntu, pl. ɳ!u-ɳ!u-ntu-kǝn by W. Bleek. Suffixal -tu is a regular extension for body part terms; its variant -ntu in this particular case is either due to assimilation with the nasal click or a combination with yet another suffix (*ɳ!u-n-tu), since reliable external data for this root generally do not support a second nasal in the medial or final position.
Story 1999: 21. Meaning glossed as 'ears' (pl.). The first morpheme is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix; =kʼu= is the plural prefix; the rest of the word is written with a space (ǂna am), possibly indicating diaeresis.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǂu-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Palatal click influx is unambiguously indicated by evidence from Nǀuu (where it is preserved) and ǀǀXegwi (where it regularly yields a lateral affricate). Nasal efflux is preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi, where it dissolves together with the click-type articulation as such. Root vowel is represented as u in all daughter languages except for ǀHaasi, where the reflexation of a should probably be regarded in connection with the unclear suffixal extension -am. Semantics and structure: The basic monosyllabic root is always encountered in the company of various nominal formatives: *ɳǂu-i ~ ɳǂu-(i)-ntu.
Bleek 1956: 372, 412. Same word as 'sand' q.v. Emphatic form: !kʼãũ-ń. Transcribed by W. Bleek as !ãũ ~ !kʼãũ ~ !ʼãũ, emphatic form: !ʼãũŋ. Quoted as !ʼãũ in [Bleek 1929: 35]. The Bleek/Lloyd transcription with -kʼ- in the click efflux position suggests that the word may have been phonetically realized as *!qʼãũ, with uvular articulation of the closure, but this is hard to prove.
Not attested properly. Cf.: ɲa ǀʼiː "it is the ground" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105]; or ha ši e ka ǀǀwaːlo "pour it on the ground" [Bleek 1956: 597] (neither the word ǀʼiː nor the word ǀǀwaːlo should be included in our wordlist because of dubious semantics).
Bleek 1937: 212. Meaning glossed as 'ground'. Quoted in [Bleek 1929: 35] as ɡ!aː 'earth'; in [Bleek 1956: 374] as ɡ!ʼa 'ground' and ɡ!aːa 'dust'. All textual examples are on the meaning 'ground' rather than required 'earth' (substance): o toa ki ɡ!ʼa "he lies on the ground", etc., but 'earth' (substance) and 'ground' (surface) are rarely distinguished in Peripheral Khoisan.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!ʼãũ ~ *!qʼãũ
Distribution: Preserved in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster; exact fate in the other branches unclear. Replacements: In ǀʼAuni, the proper cognate form to the Proto-!Wi root is glossed as !ʼãũ 'dust' [Bleek 1937: 212]; provided that this glossing is accurate, it is reasonable to suggest a local semantic shift {'earth' > 'dust'}. The "new" ǀʼAuni form for 'earth', however, although it is phonetically similar to 'dust', is not easily comparable from an etymological point of view, and its origins are obscure. Reconstruction shape: Click influx is clearly alveolar, as reflected in all daughter languages. Click efflux is not adequately reconstructible at present: Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni suggest a simple glottal stop, but the variation in attested ǀXam forms strongly suggests something more complicated, possibly a uvular ejective (*-qʼ-) or, perhaps, a complex interaction between click efflux and subsequent vocalic features (e. g. original *!aʔuŋ, misheard or reflected as *!ʼauŋ in certain cases).
Bleek 1956: 3, 54, 60. Also attested in reduplicated (emphatic?) form: hã-hãː [ibid.]. Transcribed as ãː ~ hãː ~ hĩː by W. Bleek. Quoted as hĩ ~ hã ~ ã in [Bleek 1929: 35]. Vowel gradation is typical of basic verbal roots and probably reflects mergers with different class markers. It is not clear whether the aspiration in the initial position is truly phonological (most external data do not corroborate this).
Ziervogel 1955: 35, 50. Past tense form is transcribed as ʔãː. Quoted as ʔĩː ~ ʔiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]; as ẽ ~ a ~ iː in [Bleek 1929: 35]; as ã ~ ẽ ~ iː in [Bleek 1956: 3, 36, 67].
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: We provisionally reconstruct the form with a glottal stop rather than aspirated h- in word-initial position, since the aspiration is marked only sporadically and does not seem to have any phonological significance (unlike, e. g., the initial phoneme in 'far' q.v.). Vowel nasalization could be of morphological origin, but is so persistent (attested in all branches and most languages) that it seems reasonable to carry it over to the proto-level. Vocalic gradation, however, is by all means of a morphological origin; we project the most frequently attested vowel (*a) onto the proto-level.
Bleek 1956: 414, 416, 467. Plural form: !ui-tǝn. Transcribed as !áui ~ !ʼaúi, emph. !ʼáui-ya, pl. !wí-ten ~ !wi-tǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as !aui, pl. !wiː-tn in [Bleek 1929: 35]. Fluctuating articulation of the click efflux suggests reconstruction of the "real" ǀXam form as *!qʼau-i (where -i is a suffixal class marker; the plural form may be interpreted as reduction *!qʼau-i-tǝn > *!qʼu-i-tǝn).
Bleek 1956: 396, 467; Bleek 1929: 35. Plural form: !wi-tǝn. In [Bleek 2000: 19] the nominal paradigm is presented as an irregular one: sg. !ʼʰãũ, pl. !wi-tǝn, but it is not clear if this is really an example of suppletivism (there is enough phonetic resemblance between the two forms so as not to rule out the possibility of a transcriptional error).
Doke 1936: 85. Somewhat dubious, since the meaning is glossed as 'ostrich egg' rather than '(any) egg'. However, the word is the same as 'egg' in Nǀuu, and no other South Khoisan language seems to have a root-reflected opposition between this general vs. specialized meaning, so it is relatively safe to include the word in the lexicostatistical calculations. Not attested in Maingard's data.
Bleek 1937: 214. Also !ũ̀i-sa, with singulative suffix, in [Bleek 1956: 493]. Slightly dubious, since the meaning is glossed as 'ostrich egg'. Considering, however, that this is the "default" egg among the ǀʼAuni, that no other words for 'egg' are attested, and that the word's external cognates all mean simply 'egg', the word may be deemed eligible for inclusion.
Story 1999: 21. The double vowel is written with diaeresis (iï), possibly indicating a pronunciation like kiʔi.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂui-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for ǀHaasi (provided the ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke forms are indeed phonetically compatible with the rest, see below). Replacements: Replaced in ǀHaasi by kʼii, a word of unclear origin. Reconstruction shape: Click influx is palatal (regularly preserved in Nǀuu and shifted to lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi). Most of the reliable sources generally agree on zero (velar) efflux as the original articulation, but every now and then, a glottal stop appears in the transcriptions (ǀXam, ǀǀNg!ke, Lanham & Hallowes' transcription of ǀǀXegwi); this may be indicative of a more complex pattern of original articulation, e. g. *ǂuʔi. The appearance of -a- in the singular form of the ǀXam equivalent is another problem; one possible scenario is an original paradigm that would look like *ǂaʔwi (*ǂaʔbi?), plural *ǂʼwi-ten with reduction and contraction. This would explain most of the variations and unusual features, but remains flimsy without additional confirming examples. For now, we prefer to leave the shape of the reconstruction closer to the most reliably attested form (Nǀuu).
Bleek 1956: 213. Plural form: caxaiː-tǝn ~ caxaíː-ta-kǝn. Transcribed as cʼaxáu, pl. cʼaxái-tǝn ~ cʼaːxai-ta-kǝn ~ cʼa-cʼaxu-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as cʼaxáu, pl. cʼaxái-tǝn ~ cʼa-cʼáxu-kǝn in [Bleek 1929: 36]. The reduplicated plural form is probably "emphatic" in nature. Although L. Lloyd does not mark glottalized articulation, it is well confirmed by external data, and the "real" form in ǀXam must be reconstructed as sg. *cʼa-xau, pl. *cʼa-xai-tǝn.
Bleek 1956: 213. Plural form: cáxuː-ke ~ caxuː-ŋ. Quoted as cʼaxu, pl. cʼaxu-kǝŋ ~ cʼaxúː-n in [Bleek 1929: 36]; cʼaxu, pl. cʼaxu-ke ~ cʼaxu-kǝn ~ cʼaxuː-ŋ in [Bleek 2000: 19]. Omission of glottalized articulation in [Bleek 1956] seems to be a typographic peculiarity.
Ziervogel 1955: 44. Plural form: saŋ. Quoted as cʼagu, pl. cʼa-ŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 111] (in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 48], it is also added that "one informant indicated cʼaxu as the form used 'long ago'); as cãĩ ~ caxu, pl. cãĩn in [Bleek 1929: 36]; as cáxu ~ cau, pl. cãĩn in [Bleek 1956: 214].
Bleek 1937: 207; Bleek 1956: 220. The double vocalism (not a long vowel!) may reflect a form like coʔo. The plural form is cʼaːxu ~ cʼaːxu-ke. There is some confusion in the vocabularies as to the paradigm: [Bleek 1929: 36] quotes it as co, pl. coo, whereas in [Bleek 1956: 214] we find cʼaxu, pl. cʼaːxu-ke along with singular-only coo. No textual examples are available.
Story 1999: 21. Plural form: cxɔɔ [Story 1999: 30].
Proto-!Wi:*cʼa-xu
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: In the singular number, most languages agree on *cʼaxu ~ *cʼaxau, with the second variant being more marginal and probably secondary if the internal etymology of the word is correct (see below). In the plural number, most Nǀuu dialects as well as ǀǀXegwi agreen on *cʼaxu-ŋ ~ *cʼaxu-m, where the second variant is probably the result of assimilation. Semantics and structure: Based on the general phonotactic laws of !Wi languages, the stem *cʼa-xu may only exist as an original compound of two root morphemes. Consequently, the second morpheme is easily identifiable with Proto-!Wi *xu 'face' (ǀXam xú, etc. [Bleek 1956: 261]); if so, the first may be reflecting the archaic root for 'eye' proper, with 'face' serving as a modifier, or it could have entirely different semantics. If *cʼa-xu originally < "something of the face", then it is important to pay attention to such a form as ǀʼAuni cʼou 'pips, seeds' [Bleek 1956: 220], with further parallels in Taa languages: the metaphoric shift 'seed' > 'eye' is quite common in Africa.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98, 198. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Apparently, the word may be used both as the noun 'fat' and the adjective '(to be) fat'.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested; cf., however, sãːa 'fat' (adjective) ([Bleek 1937: 205]; [Bleek 1956: 162]), etymologically cognate with the words for 'fat' in other !Wi languages (which normally do not distinguish between the noun 'fat' and the adjective).
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (where attested). Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the original shape *sU- (where U is either *u or *o) is hardly under any serious doubt, as is the fact that the original root is encountered with different suffixal extensions in Lower Nǂossob (ǀHaasi cwaː < *sU-a) and Narrow !Wi (*so-eŋ ~ *su-iŋ). Since the suffixal extension -iŋ is rather frequent in this branch, it is reasonable to reconstruct at least one of the original stems as *so-iŋ, capable of either progressive or regressive assimilation (> soeŋ ~ suiŋ).
Bleek 1956: 527, 530. Possibly pluralis tantum (no distinction between sg. and pl. forms is explicitly stated). Transcribed as ɡǀǀɛ́rri ~ ɡǀǀɛ́rri-ya ~ ɡǀǀʌrrɛ by W. Bleek. Slightly dubious. In [Bleek 1929: 38] the primary word for 'feather' is indicated as ǀu = 'hair' q.v., and in [Bleek 1956] there are several examples from W. Bleek and L. Lloyd's records that confirm such usage. All of these examples, however, only refer to the collective form ('feathers' = 'hair coverage on bird'), e. g. toi aː a, ha ǀú ǀu !xwĩ [Lloyd] "this ostrich, its feathers are ugly" [Bleek 1956: 323]. The other item, quoted in [Bleek 1929: 38] as ɡǀǀǝri, is translated there as 'feather on arrow', but in [Bleek 1956] this word can clearly refer to feathers on birds, as well as participate in such compounds as caxáiːtǝn-ka ɡǀǀerre 'eyelashes' and, most, importantly, serve as the derivation basis for the word 'bird' q.v. Unless the real meaning of this word is actually 'wing' rather than 'feather' (also a possibility), we choose to include it as the primary candidate for neutral 'feather' in ǀXam. Other items mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 38] (ǀǀɔ-tǝn 'young feather (quill)', ɡ!àna 'long ostrich feather') are even less eligible.
Sands et al. 2006. This is just a singulative variant of 'hair' q.v. (with the sg. number suffix -si).
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1937: 214], the word ɳ!ɔ̀ma is glossed as 'feather', but in [Bleek 1956: 481], the meaning is narrowed down to 'feather on arrow'. At the same time, in the earlier source [Bleek 1929: 38] we find ɡ!oː 'feather' opposed to !ʼam 'feather on arrow' (the latter word is the same as in ǂKhomani q.v., and ultimately a borrowing from Khoekhoe). With such a scattering of variants, all of which are uncertain and, moreover, lack reliable South Khoisan etymologies, we prefer to leave the slot open.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of attestation in many languages and significant variation within those languages where the word does happen to be attested (either as a borrowing from Khoe or a parallel meaning of the general word for 'hair' q.v.; only ǀXam reveals a separate word, which cannot be reliably projected onto the proto-level).
Bleek 1956: 292; Bleek 1929: 39. Emphatic form: ǀʼí-tǝn ~ ǀʼí-ya (in W. Bleek's records). Attested once in the variant ǀʼéː, within the idiomatic expression bːúː ǀʼéː 'to set on fire' [Bleek 1956: 271], provided this is the same root.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are mostly trivial, although the straightforward reconstruction *ǀʼi is contradicted by transcriptions without the glottal stop in some records of ǀǀXegwi and in ǀHaasi. Since this pattern is non-recurrent, we prefer to view it as an anomaly (either a transcriptional error or a rare positional development, e. g. elision of glottal stop between two "front" segments?).
Number:29
Word:fish
ǀXam:
Not attested; the word may not have existed at all in the language at the time of its being recorded.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested; the word may not have existed at all in the language at the time of its being recorded.
ǂKhomani:ɳǂēbē #1
Doke 1936: 63. Not attested in Maingard's data. The word itself is dubious; very few South Khoisan languages show any name for 'fish' at all, and, besides, there is no certainty in that the word denotes 'fish' in general and not some specific sort of fish (possibly borrowed from an unknown source).
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of attestation. Depending on the original home area of Proto-!Wi speakers, the word may not have existed in the language at all.
Bleek 1956: 560, 573, 632. Transcribed as ǀǀau ~ ǀǀaːuː ~ ǀǀʰau ~ ǀǀʰou ~ ǀǀxau by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀǀʰou ~ ǀǀxau in [Bleek 1929: 40]. The abundance of variants, mostly differentiated by means of the click efflux, alongside the suggested, but not very probable, polysemy 'fly / throw up / above, over, up, upon, on / to come to' in [Bleek 1956: 560], suggests that we may be dealing with several mixed-up, phonetically and semantically similar, but ultimately different stems in ǀXam. It is hardly possible to disentangle them without external comparison.
Distribution: Preserved in Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni. This distribution is technically sufficient to reliably project the word onto the Proto-!Wi level, but one must also keep in mind the attestation of tense contacts between the speakers of those two languages in the early 20th century, i. e. the ǀʼAuni entry could really be a borrowing from Nǀuu, in which case ǀXam-ǀǀNg!ke *ǀǀ(x)au would turn out to be a better candidate for proto-status. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni are trivial (pharyngealization is never marked by D. Bleek for ǀʼAuni), although this may reflect genetic relationship as well as borrowing in this particular case.
Bleek 1956: 612, 617. Quoted as ɳǀǀaː ~ ɳǀǀaː-xu in [Bleek 1929: 40]. Plural form: ɳǀǀaː-xu-ke [Bleek 2000: 19]. The morphologically complex variant ɳǀǀaː-xu (where -xu is a frequent nominal suffix, cf. 'eye') is more frequent, according to D. Bleek.
Ziervogel 1955: 41. Distinct from ǀalagu 'leg' [Ziervogel 1955: 38]; tʰi 'leg' [Ziervogel 1955: 40] (the latter word's meaning would rather seem to be 'thigh', as glossed in [Bleek 1956: 196]). Quoted as ǀkʼe in [Bleek 1929: 40] and as ǀxʼe in [Bleek 1956: 338].
Story 1999: 21, 30. The first morpheme (n=) is the 1st p. possessive prefix. Plural form: ka=ŋ=!a-ai.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible. ǀXam *ɳ!oa and "old Nǀuu" *ɳǀǀa (in D. Bleek's attestation) may be etymologically compared with each other, as well as with ǀǀKxau ɲa-xu-ŋ ~ ɲa-xu-si 'leg' [Bleek 1956: 144], but are not easily traceable to a higher level. Proto-Lower Nǂossob *!xʼai ~ *!ʰai also has no etymology outside of that particular branch. Overall, the etymon is almost surprisingly unstable (particularly when compared to 'hand' q.v.).
Bleek 1956: 413, 414. Polysemy: 'to be full / satisfied'. Transcribed by W. Bleek as !áúíŋ. This seems to be an intransitive or adjectival derivate from !kʼã̀ũ̀ ~ !áúŋ-a 'to fill' [Bleek 1956: 411, 415]; the form !auŋ-a is also glossed as 'full' in [Bleek 1929: 41]. Occasional transcription of this root with a velar ejective click efflux is important in that it may reflect uvular articulation (earlier *!qãũ or *!qʼãũ).
Sands et al. 2006. Secondary synonym: ǂʼun-a (Western dialect) ~ ǂʼuŋ-a (Eastern dialect). This word, however, relates rather to the meaning 'full (of stomach), satiated'.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀxʼǝn-si2
Bleek 1937: 217; Bleek 1956: 605 (erroneously listed as a form from "SV", Masarwa). Cf. also ǀǀãũ 'to fill' ([Bleek 1937: 215]; [Bleek 1956: 561]), which may be somehow related here, since most Peripheral Khoisan languages do not distinguish lexically between 'fill' and 'full'. (Discrepancies in the click efflux could indicate poor quality of transcription).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!qauŋ #
Distribution: Well attested in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster; in most other languages, the equivalent for 'full' simply remains unknown. Replacements: The relation of ǀXam-Nǀuu *!qauŋ to ǀʼAuni ǀǀxʼǝn-si 'full', ǀǀãũ 'to fill' remains unclear; most probably, they are not connected, since Nǀuu ! does not properly correspond to ǀʼAuni ǀǀ. If the ǀʼAuni forms are not related, they have no separate etymology and could also lay claim to reflecting the Proto-!Wi equivalent for 'full', but this is less probable than in the case of the ǀXam-Nǀuu match (more reliable and formally reconstructible to a deeper time level). Reconstruction shape: The original verbal root 'to fill', as attested in ǀXam, calls for the reconstruction *!qauŋ; the adjectival form, common to both ǀXam and Nǀuu, was most likely *!qauŋ-ya, with occasional contraction and reduction in ǀXam (> *!qauiŋ).
Bleek 1956: 1. Transcribed as á by W. Bleek; quoted as aː in [Bleek 1929: 42]. The latter source also lists ǀaː as a synonym, but in [Bleek 1956: 293] the word is glossed as 'to leave, let alone, give, wait, stay', and textual examples do not indicate any possibility of this lexeme representing the default verb of giving in ǀXam.
Bleek 1956: 1; Bleek 1929: 42. The latter source also gives the synonym saː for the same meaning, but in [Bleek 1956] saː is more frequently defined as 'to bring, fetch' (thus, the example ha saː ke !xe e ɳǀa in [Bleek 2000: 22] is "she brings me a cloth for the head" rather than "she gives me..."), which agrees well with the internal etymologization of this stem as a morphological variant of si ~ sa 'to come' q.v.
Miller et al. 2009: 156. Two variants, a and ã, are listed in [Sands et al. 2006]. The latter list also yields a secondary synonym: cʼaː (Western dialect) ~ ʒʼaː (Eastern dialect) 'to give, share, distribute, portion out'.
Ziervogel 1955: 36; Bleek 1929: 42; Bleek 1956: 161. Quoted as sa in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115], with a contracted variant s- in such phrases as in za s-e "I will give" [ibid.]. In [Bleek 1929: 42], ǀǀe is listed as a synonym (presumably incorrectly, since the same word is listed with the semantics 'hold, carry' in [Bleek 1956: 566]).
Bleek 1956: 1. In [Bleek 1937: 201], the word is glossed as áke, but the textual example in [Bleek 1956: 1] segments this into the verb a and the verbal particle ke: ɳǀe ǀǀàm a ke "quickly give me". Earlier records yield two entirely different quasi-synonyms for 'give': ǀǀa and tão [Bleek 1929: 42]. Of these, the former is probably the same as the verb 'to go, move' and should be disqualified; the second is, however, confirmed as 'give' in [Bleek 1937: 206] and in [Bleek 1956: 193], where it is supported with the text example tão ki ʘwe "give me meat". Since this word has no clear-cut etymological connections, we do not include it as a synonym, but the overall situation is far from clear.
Distribution: Well reconstructible for Proto-ǀXam-Nǀuu; also probably attested in ǀʼAuni, which makes it the optimal candidate for Proto-!Wi 'to give'. Replacements: (a) ǀǀXegwi sa 'to give' is etymologically equivalent to ǀǀNg!ke sa 'to bring, fetch, give' (see notes on ǀǀNg!ke), and it may be reasonably argued that we are dealing here with the common semantic shift {'to bring' > 'to give'}; the verb 'to bring', in its turn, is most likely a causative function of *sa ~ *si 'to come' q.v.; (b) ǀʼAuni ɳǀa 'give' is most frequently (although not always) observed in imperative forms, and etymologically corresponds to ǀXam ɳǀa 'let, give' [Bleek 1956: 341] (usually also imperative). Distribution of the various functions of this root in !Wi indicates that the imperative function ('let!', 'give!') is the one to be projected onto the proto-level with the most certainty. If it is indeed used in an indicative meaning in any dialect, such usage is most likely secondary. Reconstruction shape: The root is usually encountered in the simple variant *a or with nasalization (*ã < *a-ã through contraction with a suffix?). An additional problem arises with ǀHaasi i. This monovocalic stem could be legitimately compared with Proto-!Wi *a, since vocalic gradation in basic verbal roots is a commonality in this group - one could, in fact, think of reconstructing Proto-!Wi *a ~ *i 'to give', completely analoguous to *sa ~ *si 'to come', etc. Nevertheless, to answer this question with more certainty, one would need a more thorough study of !Wi verbal morphophonology.
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1956: 341, 348. Not attested at all in [Bleek 1929], but textual examples in the indicative or imperative meaning are actually more frequent for this verb in [Bleek 1956] than for a.
Bleek 1956: 7. Quoted as aː-kǝn in [Bleek 1929: 43]. The word is glossed as 'to be nice / good / comfortable / handsome / beautiful / to do nicely, well' in [Bleek 1956], but no definitive textual contexts are given (such as antonymous expressions like 'good and bad', etc.) to determine if it is this word or tːwã́ĩ́ that is the default ǀXam equivalent for 'good' as such. It remains only to treat both items as synonyms.
Bleek 1956: 92. Transcribed as kiai ~ kiaiˤ, which represents palatalized articulation of the original consonant. This word is not mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 43], which, instead, quotes an alternate lexical item: !ʼʰãĩya, itself not confirmed in [Bleek 1956]. We choose the entry from the more reliable source (and one that is also better backed up by external parallels).
ǂKhomani:xʼām-ɕé #-1
Doke 1936: 77. Not attested in Maingard's data. The word is somewhat dubious. It is very likely a borrowing from Khoekhoe, where the actual meaning is 'right; true' (Nama am, !Ora xʼam); due to scarceness of data, there is no way to ascertain whether the correct meaning for ǂKhomani is indeed 'good' (= 'positive') or 'right, true, correct'. In any case, we mark the form with a negative cognation index, covering both possibilities (suitable meaning, but in a borrowed form; or lack of the appropriate item as such).
Sands et al. 2006. The form is not quite clear morphologically; the second syllable is probably suffixal. Said of people.
ǀǀXegwi:luga-ge #-1
Ziervogel 1955: 62. Identified by Ziervogel as a Bantuism (Swahili lunga, etc.). However, it is not clear if this was really the primary ǀǀXegwi equivalent for 'good' (only encountered once in texts).
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of data as well as a serious tendency of this word to be borrowed from external sources.
Bleek 1956: 87. Emphatic form: kérru-kǝn. Quoted as kǝruwa (a different morphological variant) in [Bleek 1929: 44]. In known textual examples, applied mostly to vegetation; glossed also in the nominal meaning 'grass, foliage, vegetation'. This is more likely to be the default ǀXam word for 'green' than ǀaːiːn (L. Lloyd), ǀaːiːn ~ ǀaːiːn-ya (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 297], since the latter is glossed as 'to be green, yellow, shining' and applied to all sorts of "shining" objects, including even 'sky' (cf. ǀǀõiŋyaŋ kwerre ɡ!waxukǝn ǀǀʰou ǀaːiːn "the sun cooled, the sky waxed green" [ibid.] - a very dubious translation).
ǀǀNg!ke:ǀxʼre2
Bleek 1956: 336; Bleek 1929: 44; Bleek 2000: 26. This is the only equivalent for 'green' attested in all of the sources on ǀǀNg!ke, including a (rather pointless) textual example (ha ka ǀxʼre "it is green" [Bleek 2000: 26]). The phonetic structure of ǀxʼre is somewhat atypical for ǀǀNg!ke and Khoisan languages in general; the obvious explanation is reduction from an earlier *ǀxʼVre (cf. a similar situation in the case of 'red' q.v.). One secondary synonym is ǀarowa ([Bleek 1929: 44]; [Bleek 1956: 302]), with no textual examples at all.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǀǀʼʰao-a-1
Sands et al. 2006. Most likely, a recent borrowing from Khoekhoe (cf. Nama ǀǀʰao 'to turn green; to grow').
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:ǀǀau-1
Story 1999: 22. Most probably, a Khoekhoe borrowing (see notes on Nǀuu).
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of data; additionally, many of the forms that are actually attested turn out to be borrowings.
Bleek 1956: 314, 323. Polysemy: 'hair / feathers / skin of insect'. Transcribed as ǀú ~ ǀú-ki ~ ǀú-kǝn, emphatic form ǀú-ka-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀɯ in [Bleek 1929: 45]. Although the word is more frequently transcribed as ǀu than ǀʰu, external connections of the word clearly indicate that ǀʰu, with aspiration, is the more archaic variant of the two.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Aspiration of the click is indicated in most data sources and may be reliably projected onto the proto-level. Vowel lowering in Lower Nǂossob languages (*ǀʰu > *ǀʰo) is analoguous to several similar cases (cf., e.g., 'dog') and is probably regular.
Bleek 1956: 336; Bleek 1929: 45. Plural form: ǀxʼá-ǀxʼa (with reduplication). Polysemy: 'hand / finger / shoot (of plants) / string' (meanings 'arm' and 'foreleg' are also listed, but this is very dubious).
Ziervogel 1955: 44. Plural form: ǀxʼa-ŋ. Quoted as qʰiː, phonetically [qʰǝiː] in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]. It should be noted that the alleged suppletivism of the stem is not reflected in D. Bleek's data: the singular form is listed as ǀkʼa in [Bleek 1929: 45] and as ǀxʼa in [Bleek 1956: 336] (a ǀxʼa is translated there as "thy hand", not "thy hands").
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1929: 45; Bleek 1956: 336. Polysemy: 'hand / arm / foreleg / wing'. In the specific meaning 'hand', a compound form is also quoted: ǀxʼa ɳǀa, literally 'arm-head'.
Story 1999: 22. The morpheme n= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix. The alternate listed variant kʼaŋ=kʼu=ǀxaŋ likely represents the plural form (with the plurality prefix kʼu=). Cf. n=ǀã 'arm' [Story 1999: 21] (n= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix).
Proto-!Wi:*ǀxʼa
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages with the possible exception of ǀǀXegwi. Replacements: The form *qʰi in ǀǀXegwi is phonetically incompatible with Proto-!Wi *ǀxʼa; its origins are currently unknown. However, data collected by D. Bleek indicate that the replacement in ǀǀXegwi may have been quite recent and valid only for certain subdialects. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are trivial. Semantics and structure: In Lower Nǂossob, the word is regularly encountered with an additional nasal suffix (*ǀxʼa-ŋ); comparative ǀǀXegwi data shows that this may have been a fossilized plural marker.
Build tree