Werner 2002: I, 474; Werner 1993: 59. Neuter gender. Plural form: kˈǝqta-nʸ {къқтань}. Polysemy: 'neck / collar'. Quoted as kǝˑqtɨ₁ / kǝˑqt₁ (S.-Imb.), pl. kɜqta-n₅ in [Werner 1977: 156]; as kɜaqte ~ kaqte, pl. kɜakte-neŋ in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 163. Neuter gender. Plural form: kˈɜχtɨ-ŋɨn. Quoted as kǝχtɨ₁, pl. kɜχtɨ-nɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 156].

Castrén 1858: 226. Plural form: pʰuymur-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: pumur (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 391].

Werner 2002: I, 283. Attested only in (Kh.).

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 237. Alternately reconstructed as *kǝqtǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 475]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: In Kott-Arin, replaced with *puyme ~ *puymur, of unclear origin. The reason why the Ket-Yugh word is seen as more archaic is the Kott parallel in agˈantan 'collar' (< *kagantan with dissimilation): the semantic development 'neck' > 'collar' is typologically normal, whereas the opposite would be quite strange. Subsequently, it is logical to suggest the metonymic shift {'neck' > 'collar'} for Kott-Arin, and a replacement of the original 'neck' by an innovation. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket and Kott largely follow the same pattern as in the word for 'hunger': Ket qɔːt ~ qoʁat = Kott kayante, indicating a *CVCVnt-type structure. Semantics and structure: Due to its sheer length, Proto-Yeniseian *kǝqǝnt must have contained a suffix, although the element *-nt is hardly segmentable as a productive derivative morpheme on any level.

Werner 2002: I, 429, 434; Werner 1993: 53. Predicative form (attributive form is kiʔ). Polysemy: 'new / fresh'. Quoted as attributive kiʔ, predicative kiː-sʸi₄ (Kur.) / kiː-sʸe₄ (Bak.) in [Werner 1977: 153]; as kie ~ kiʔɛ in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 227. Quoted as kiʔ₂ in [Werner 1977: 153]. Synonym: tulɨm [Werner 2011: 227], quoted as tulɨm₅ ~ tulɨm₆ in [Werner 1977: 184]. The semantic difference between the old and the new synonyms (this may be a case of "transit synonymy", see notes on Common Ket-Yugh) is not clear.

Castrén 1858: 205.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 227. Alternately reconstructed as *kiʔ in [Werner 2002: I, 429]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Kott, not attested in Arin and Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and trivial.

Werner 2002: II, 206; Werner 1993: 87. Neuter gender. Plural form: sʸˈiɣ-a ~ sʸˈiɣ-ɛk-ŋ {сига ~ сигэкӈ} (the latter form is a composite noun, with ɛk-ŋ 'days' /pl./ as the second part; see 'sun' for further details). Quoted as sʸiˑ₁, pl. sʸiɣ-ǝ₅ in [Werner 1977: 176]; as siː, pl. si-eŋ ~ sig-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 186].

Werner 2011: 222. Neuter gender. Plural form: si-ɛk-ŋ (see notes on Ket for analysis of the plural form). Quoted as si₁ in [Werner 1977: 176]. Secondary synonym: saʰːr, pl. sˈar-ɨŋ ~ saʰːr-ɨŋ [Werner 2011: 222]; the plural form of this noun is also frequently employed as a suppletive form for si. This word corresponds to Ket saːl 'to spend the night; staying the night' [Werner 2002: II, 162], and refers to 'night' as a "time period devoid of human activity" rather than the "dark period of time".

Castrén 1858: 213. Plural form: š-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: šig (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 339].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Also quoted as say in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 206].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Secondary synonym: toːl 'night' (Dict., Pal., Kl.) [ibid.]. The latter, judging by external comparanda, could really mean 'time of night', 'spending the night', etc.

S. Starostin 1995: 274. Alternately reconstructed as *šigǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 206]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are mostly regular. Word-final *-ɢ is reconstructed primarily on the basis of its deletion in Ket-Yugh (the other uvular consonants are usually preserved). One problem is with Pumpokol -č, which, according to S. Starostin, is an unexpected reflexation and could reflect an additional suffix or, perhaps, a compound formation with eč 'sky'. Cf., however, a similar situation with 'fire' q.v., where Pumpokol -č is also found as the equivalent of a back consonant in Ket-Yugh. This implies that the reflexation may be due to some regular conditioning, although the data are too scarce to establish this regularity.

Werner 2002: II, 38; Werner 1993: 82. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔlɨn-ɨŋ {олын-ыӈ}. Quoted as ɔlɨn₅ ~ ɔlǝn₅, pl. ɔlɨn₆ in [Werner 1977: 171]. Quoted as oln, pl. oːlen-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 163].

Werner 2011: 225. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔlɨn-ɨŋ. Quoted as ɔlɨn₅ ~ ɔlǝn₅, pl. ɔlɨn-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 171].

Castrén 1858: 196. Genitive: aːŋ-i(e), plural form: aːŋ-ˈan.

Dulzon 1961: 74 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 74 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 295. Distribution: Preserved in Kott and Pumpokol; replaced in Ket-Yugh and Arin. Replacements: The isogloss between Kott and Pumpokol is further strengthened with the existence of Ket aŋgɔn 'nostrils', which H. Werner convincingly explains as *aŋ 'nose' + *qɔːn, pl. from quk 'hole' [Werner 2002: I, 45]. This means that two replacements have to be postulated: in Ket-Yugh, the old word for 'nose' was replaced with *ʔɔlɨn, and in Arin, with ˈar-quy, where -quy = 'hole', as in tˈim-quy 'window'. In theory, Ket-Yugh and Arin forms may be related [S. Starostin 1995: 197], since there are no phonetic obstacles for their common etymologization. However, significant discrepancies in the morphological structure of both words suggest that they have different origins: the Ket-Yugh form looks like a fossilized plural from *ʔɔl-, while the Arin form is a compound formation with an unidentified first part. For that reason, and also in order to avoid undesirable semantic "criss-crossing", we prefer, following H. Werner, to keep Ket-Yugh and Arin forms separate from each other for the moment. Reconstruction shape: The presence of h- in the Pumpokol form caused S. Starostin to reconstruct the Proto-Yeniseian equivalent as *xaŋ, but it should be kept in mind that the presence / absence of a word-initial laryngeal in Pumpokol is hardly conclusive evidence; Proto-Yeniseian *ʔaŋ 'nose' is definitely not excluded.

Werner 2002: I, 157; Werner 1993: 30. This is the main particle of verbal negation in Ket (should be strictly distinguished from the prohibitive at 'not!, don't!' [Werner 2002: 1, 72]). Quoted as bǝˑnʸ₁ ~ bǝnʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 141]. Quoted as bɨen in [Castrén 1858: 190].

Werner 2011: 228. This is the main particle of verbal negation in Yugh; should be strictly distinguished from the prohibitive atˈa 'not!, don't!' [Werner 2011: 228]. Quoted as bǝnʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 141].

Castrén 1858: 227. Cf. also boː 'not!' (prohibitive) [Castrén 1858: 224]. Cf. in older sources: mon (M., Dict.) [Verner 1990: 337].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (M., Dict.). In (Kl.), the meaning is glossed as 'no', but the few available examples confirm that this is indeed the verbal negative particle 'no' (e. g. bon peŋaulʸoŋ 'I do not see').

Dulzon 1961: 174 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 294 (*wǝ-). Alternately reconstructed as *bǝ ~ *bǝn in [Werner 2002: I, 157]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but see notes on Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Initial *w- is reconstructed by S. Starostin on the basis of the voiced stop (or nasal m, assimilated from *b under the influence of the following n) reflexation in all languages and dialects. Semantics and structure: Proto-Yeniseian *wǝn is internally segmented into *wǝ-n by S. Starostin on the basis of Kott prohibitive boː, which is supposed to reflect original *wǝ without the nasal suffix. However, the mechanism of *wǝ-n being generated from *wǝ remains unclear. Pumpokol amut is also a strange form; if it is related here, it must go back to *a=mun-t, with an additional prefixal and suffixal component, but the nature of these components is unclear - perhaps the attested form is not really just a simple negation ('not'), but a complex predicative form (e. g. 'there is not').

Werner 2002: II, 122, 132; Werner 1993: 67. The two forms are respectively quantifying inanimate and animate objects. Predicative form: qˈusʸ-am / qˈɔk-du "he is one (alone)" ~ qˈɔk-da "she is one (alone)". The suffixes are not productive, but it hardly makes sense to regard the two forms as not representing an original single root. Quoted as quˑsʸ₁ / qɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 162, 166]; as kuok (anim.) / kog-dɛ (anim. predic.) / kusʸɛm in [Castrén 1858: 40-41].

Werner 2011: 113. The two forms are respectively quantifying inanimate and animate objects. Quoted as χus₁ / χɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 162, 166].

Castrén 1858: 212. The root is huː-, as seen from the old derivative formation huː-piga 'alone' (where -piga is derived from the same root as 'man' q.v.). Cf. in older sources: hˈuča (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 341]. Cf. also xanči-xit 'one' (Kh.), where xit = 'person' q.v., but xanči shows a significantly deviant phonetic shape [ibid.].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as kʰu-zey in (Pal.) and as kui-sa in Strahlenberg's records. Cf. kus-ket 'one person' (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: II, 132].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 306 (*χu-sa). Alternately reconstructed as *qus ~ *qut in [Werner 2002: II, 132]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: Forms such as Ket-Yugh *qɔʔ-k 'one (animate)' and Kott huː-piga 'alone' clearly imply that *-s(a) was a suffixal element in Proto-Yeniseian. Word-final *-a is a suffixal element common for most of Proto-Yeniseian numerals. As for the component *-s-, it may be compared with the singulative suffix *-s that is segmented out of archaic nominal stems such as 'eye' q.v. or 'stone' q.v. If this is the case, then it is also highly probable (as originally proposed by S. Starostin) that *-s- is the original numeric morpheme ('one'), whereas *qu- is an old deictic element, perhaps to be compared with some of the Yeniseian demonstrative pronouns. Nevertheless, on the exact Proto-Yeniseian level it was clearly the morpheme *qu- that already functioned as the primary carrier of the numeric meaning, which is why the protoform is entered as *qu-s-a and not *qu=s-a.

Werner 2002: I, 420; Werner 1993: 52. Suppletive plural: dɛʔŋ {дэʼӈ} 'people' [Werner 2002: I, 185]. Quoted as kɛʔt₂, pl. dɛʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 143, 153]; as keːt ~ kiet, pl. keɛd-eŋ (sic!) in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 218. Suppletive plural: dʸɛʔŋ 'people' [ibid.]. Quoted as kɛʔt₂, pl. dʸɛʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 143, 153].

Castrén 1858: 210. Suppletive plural: čeäŋ 'people' [ibid.]. Cf. in older sources: il=it (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), xit (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 388] (the "prefix" il= may be the same as in Ket ilʸ kɛʔt 'living person').

Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as kʸit in (Pal.); as kit in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 420].

Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 236; Werner 2002: I, 421. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular (some uncertainties remain about the original vocalism). Semantics and structure: The word had a suppletive plural on the Proto-Yeniseian level, reconstructed as *ǯeʔŋ [S. Starostin 1995: 309], probably the original plural of an unpreserved singular *ǯeʔ 'person'.

Werner 2002: II, 338; Werner 1993: 109. Masculine gender. Plural form: ˈulʸ-et-aŋ. Literally: 'water' q.v. + 'sky' (although the first root may actually be etymologically different from 'water'). Quoted as ulʸ-esʸ₅ ~ ulʸ-esʸ₆ in [Werner 1977: 187].

Werner 2011: 242. Masculine gender. Plural form: uˈr-es-aŋ. Literally: 'water' q.v. + 'sky' (although the first root may actually be etymologically different from 'water'). Quoted as ur-es₅ ~ ur-es₆ in [Werner 1977: 187].

Castrén 1858: 203. Plural form: uːr-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: ur (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 306].

Dulzon 1961: 165 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as kur-aːsa in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 338] (where the second component is an Ablaut variant of es 'sky').

Dulzon 1961: 165 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The second root morpheme -ait is a morphophonological variant of eč 'sky'.

S. Starostin 1995: 297. Alternately reconstructed as *ʔuʎ(es) ~ *kʰuʎ(es) in [Werner 2002: II, 338]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but see notes on structure below). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: There is a problematic relationship between the listed forms and the original Proto-Yeniseian word for 'water'. In Ket-Yugh, 'rain' is easily analyzable as a compound form: *ʔur 'water' + *ʔes 'sky'. This has led to H. Werner merging the 'water' and 'rain' roots in one (*ʔuʎ 'water', *ʔuʎ or *ʔuʎ-es 'rain'). However, Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol consistently feature different resonants in the root morphemes for 'water' and 'rain', e. g. Arin kur 'rain' vs. kul 'water', Pumpokol ur-ait (where -ait < *ʔes) 'rain' vs. ul 'water'. This remains unexplained in Werner's reconstruction, but is accounted for in S. Starostin's, where original *xur 'rain' is opposed to *xur₁ 'water'. It is not excluded that the two roots are, in the end, related (through some non-trivial morphophonological connection) on a higher level than Proto-Yeniseian, but for PY it is indeed preferable to separate them. In Ket-Yugh, *xur and *xur₁, according to S. Starostin's correspondences, must have merged phonetically, so, technically, the Ket-Yugh forms listed here could just as well go back to 'water', not 'rain', but ultimately there is no strong evidence to separate them from their Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol correlates in the lexicostatistical aspect.

Werner 2002: II, 213; Werner 1993: 91. A transparent derivative of sʸuˑlʸ 'blood' q.v., formed with the aid of an inanimate object class predicative suffix. Cf. also the verb sʸˈulʸ-ey 'to become red' [Werner 2002: II, 213]. Quoted as sʸuˑlʸ-am₁ in [Werner 1977: 178]; as sʸul-em in [Castrén 1858: 188].

Werner 2011: 246. Plural form: sur-bes-iŋ ~ sur-bɛs-ɨŋ. A transparent derivative of sur 'blood' q.v., formed with the aid of the prosecutive marker -bɛʰːs (here, with the meaning 'like', 'such as'). Quoted as sur₄-bɛʰːs, pl. sur₅-bɛs-n in [Werner 1977: 178]; as sur-bes in [Castrén 1858: 187].

Castrén 1858: 215. Only attested in the infinitive form šur-um-ai-čei 'to paint red; to dye' (also šurumai baːttaŋ id.); with some doubt, the root šur- (same as 'blood' q.v.) could also be present in the adjectival form 'red', although it is not directly attested in Castrén's materials. However, no alternate equivalent is attested, either, and both internal and external data suggest that no alternative equivalent actually existed. Furthermore, cf. in older sources: šurama 'red' (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 324].

Dulzon 1961: 170 (M., Dict., Kl.). Strangely quoted as tʸgura in (Pal.); cf. also tula '(it is) red' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 213]. The probability of borrowing from Pumpokol, discussed in [Werner 2002: II, 213] and in S. Starostin's notes, is quite low (very few, if any, such cases in the rest of Arin data).

Dulzon 1961: 170 (Dict., Kl.). Quoted as tˈul-zi in (Pal.). The morpheme -si (-zi) is a standard adjectival suffix.

S. Starostin 1995: 278. Distribution: Preserved everywhere, with the likely exception of Arin (but see further notes). Replacements: Arin tʸuːra cannot be regarded as a regular reflexation of Proto-Yeniseian *sur- (the regular reflexation is found in Arin sur 'blood' q.v.). Since in all other Yeniseian languages the word for 'red' is transparently derived from 'blood', S. Starostin suggests either contamination with Proto-Yeniseian *tu 'raw' (not likely, since 'raw' and 'red' are rather distant from each other semantically, not to mention that *tu has no known reflexation in Arin), or borrowing into Arin from Pumpokol, which is even less likely, since this is the only such case in the entire corpus. It seems that, given the sharp distinction in consonantism, the Arin word has to be counted as etymologically different from the rest. It is possible to suggest an alternate etymology: cf. Ket-Yugh tulʸet 'red currant', Pumpokol turčari 'strawberry' [Werner 2002: II, 286], reconstructed as *tuʎ- in [S. Starostin 1995: 289]. Arin tʸuːra is phonetically and semantically ('red /berry/') compatible with these forms; in fact, it is not even excluded that *tuʎ- is the archaic Yeniseian root for 'red', preserved in most languages only within derived formations for names of red berries, whereas Arin is the only language to preserve the original form. Nevertheless, given the distribution of 'blood'-based derivatives, it is not permissible to rank it as the optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'red'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular (see notes on 'blood'). Semantics and structure: Comparison of Ket sʸulʸ-am- and Kott šur-am- allows to suggest Proto-Yeniseian status for the adjectival stem *sur-am-, but it should be noted that Pumpokol and Yugh both show different ways of stem formation. This means that the semantic connection between 'blood' and 'red' must have been well understood at all stages of development of Yeniseian languages, allowing the derived formation to be "reformed" from time to time according to various productive models.

Werner 2002: II, 123; Werner 1993: 70. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɨˑn-eŋ {қынеӈ}. Quoted as qɔʔt₂, pl. qɨˑn-ǝŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 164]; as qoat, pl. qoad-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170]. The meaning for this word is glossed as 'winter road' ('Winterweg') in [Werner 2002]. It should be noted that the plural form is actually suppletive, but, contra [Starostin 1995: 261], it is not a plural formation from qɨˑk 'road' q.v. (the consonantal mutation would be unprecedented), but rather from qɨˑnʸ 'current, flow' [Werner 2002: II, 154] - perhaps as a result of the semantic shift from 'currents' to 'water-ways' to 'ways' in general.

Werner 2011: 333. Neuter gender. Plural form: χˈɨn-eŋ ~ χˈɨn-ɨŋ. Quoted as χɔʔt₂, pl. χɨn-eŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 164]. See notes on Ket for detailed semantics and explanation of the suppletive plural.

Castrén 1858: 209. Plural form: hay-aŋ. Castrén does not record any opposition between 'summer road' and 'winter road' (but neither does he record one for Ket, where it certainly exists, so it is quite probable that the Kott situation was inadeqautely described as well). Cf. in older sources: xɨk (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 306]; other sources list an entirely different stem - itik (M., Dict., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (M., Kl.). Quoted as kat in (Dict.). Cf. the composite form kol-kut 'road' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 123] (etymology of the first root is unknown).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 261. Alternately reconstructed as *qɔʔt in [Werner 2002: II, 123]. Distribution: This root is attested everywhere except in Kott. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular (some usual vocalic fluctuations in Arin and Pumpokol aside). Semantics and structure: The Ket-Yugh situation with semantics is probably archaic, i. e. Proto-Yeniseian *qoʔt should be reconstructed with the meaning 'winter road'. Overall, it seems as if Ket-Yugh preserved the original lexical distinction between 'summer road' and 'winter road', whereas Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol generalized one word of the two (alternately, it is possible that only one word of the two was elicited by the inquirers - for instance, depending on the season in which the research was carried out?..).

Werner 2002: II, 154; Werner 1993: 74. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɨksʸ-eŋ {қыксеӈ} ~ qɨˑn-eŋ. Quoted as qɨˑk₁, pl. qɨksʸ-eŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 167]. The meaning for this word is glossed as 'summer road' ('Sommerweg') in [Werner 2002].

    With the peculiar distinction between two types of 'road / way' (one for the winter, one for summer, which is not particularly surprising for a Siberian hunter culture), it seems impossible to determine which one is more "basic"; for the moment, we include both words as synonyms.

Werner 2011: 333. Neuter gender. Plural form: χɨn-ɨŋ ~ χɨk-ŋ. Quoted as χɨk₁ ~ χɨʔk₂, pl. χɨn-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 167]. Same semantic properties as in the case of the Ket word.

S. Starostin 1995: 301 (*χɨχ). Alternately reconstructed as *qǝk in [Werner 2002: II, 154]. Distribution: This root is attested in Ket-Yugh and Kott, but not Arin and Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: The exact phonemic nature of the uvulars remains unclear, because various assimilative / dissimilative processes could have obscured the original structure. However, the alternation -k / -y- in Kott does firmly suggest that the second consonant was also a uvular. Semantics and structure: The semantics 'summer road', attested in Ket-Yugh, is likely to be archaic.

Werner 2002: II, 265; Werner 1993: 99. Neuter gender. Plural form: tiˑrʸ-eˑŋ {тиреӈ}. Quoted as tiːrʸi₄ (Kur.) / tiːdǝ₄ ~ tidǝ₄ (Bak., Sur.) / tirʸ₄ (S.-Imb.), pl. tiˑrʸ-eŋ₁ / tiˑd-eŋ₁ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 180]; as tiedi ~ tiedie, pl. tiːd-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 176].

Werner 2011: 344. Neuter gender. Plural form: tˈidʸ-iŋ. Quoted as tiʰːtʸ₄, pl. tidʸ-iŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 180].

Castrén 1858: 219. The word is most likely a compound, where the second part = pul 'foot' q.v. and the first part is etymologically unclear (the original root may be *tʰeC-, with many possible choices for the second consonant due to high probability of assimilation with -pul). Cf. in older sources: tˈiːembulaŋ (M., Dict., Kl.), lgiembulaŋ (Pal.) [Verner 1990: 322] (the strange orthography of the latter variant is unclear). Different stem listed in (Kh.): ačigan (obviously connected with ači 'tree' q.v.).

Dulzon 1961: 169 (M., Dict.). Quoted as tʸeːm-bir-gaŋ in (Kl.); as lʸgem-birʸ-yaŋ in (Pal.) (all the forms are really plural, 'roots'). Quoted as ten-bir in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 317]. The structure of the form is the same as in Kott q.v.

Dulzon 1961: 169 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The form is quite obviously plural ('roots'). The quasi-synonymous entry tɨči (Dict.), tɨčɨ (Kl.) [ibid.] in reality represents the Yugh form q.v.

S. Starostin 1995: 217 (*čiːǯ). Alternately reconstructed as *tʰiʔǝdʸǝ ~ *tʰigǝdʸǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 265]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, although in a seriously modified form in Kott-Arin. In Kott-Arin, replaced with *tem-bul, where *-bul may be the same root as 'foot' q.v. (S. Starostin rejects this idea because the regular Arin word for 'foot' is pil, not *pir; however, reflexes of liquid resonants in Arin are known to fluctuate rather chaotically, and it is not excluded that this particular split was influenced by different phonetic contexts or paradigmatic levellings, etc.); the first part, *tem- (-m- could be the result of assimilation with *-bul, so the second consonant is really obscure), has no known etymology. Reconstruction shape: A complicated situation. First, Ket-Yugh *tiːǯ and Pumpokol ked- are compatible with each other under the condition that the initial consonant was an affricate (*č- or *c-), dissimilated (*čiːǯ- > *tiːǯ-) in Ket-Yugh. Second, pace S. Starostin, it is actually possible to tie these forms to their Kott and Arin equivalents. Proto-Kott-Arin has *tem-bul, where *-bul may be the same root as 'foot' q.v. (S. Starostin rejects this idea because the regular Arin word for 'foot' is pil, not *pir; however, reflexes of liquid resonants in Arin are known to fluctuate rather chaotically, and it is not excluded that this particular split was influenced by different phonetic contexts or paradigmatic levellings, etc.); the first part, *tem- (-m- could be the result of assimilation with *-bul, so the second consonant is really obscure), has no known etymology, but cf. also such dialectal Assan forms as tɨy-bˈul ~ tuy-bˈul 'root': this variation can only be explained in terms of an original nominal paradigm *tey, pl. *te-n. The word 'foot' was probably attached to the original root in order to reduce homonymy (*tey-bul, pl. *te-n-bul ~ *te-n-bul-aŋ > *tem-bul/aŋ/). Subsequently, a Proto-Yeniseian reconstruction like *ciːǯ could regularly yield Kott-Arin *tiy (> *tey with vocalic dissimilation).

Werner 2002: II, 446; Werner 1993: 55. Borrowed from Russian круглый. Potential earlier synonyms include: (a) South Ket hɨrʸˈimtaŋ-sʸ [Werner 2002: I, 345], a morphologically complex form of unclear origin and not very secure from a semantic point of view; (b) teɛp in [Castrén 1858: 176], with no modern attestation.

Werner 2011: 249. Plural form: mˈɨmpɨl-ɨŋ.

Castrén 1858: 200. Meaning glossed as 'circle; round'.

Not attested.

Not attested. Cf. fɨlɨm 'circle' (Pal.) [Dulzon 1961: 170] (unless this is really a Yugh form, cf. Yugh fɨlɨm 'spindle').

Not reconstructible due to lack of sufficient data. The closest Proto-Yeniseian root would probably be *puʔl 'to turn, twirl' [S. Starostin 1995: 252], from which the Yugh form for 'round' is derived, but it is hard to make a firm statement based on data from just one language in this case.

Werner 2002: I, 337; Werner 1993: 123. Quoted as hɜnǝŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as hɜɛneŋ, pl. hɜɛneŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 252. Quoted as fɜnɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as fɜɛneŋ ~ faːneŋ, pl. fɜɛneŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 191].

Castrén 1858: 217. Plural form: tʰagan-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: tagˈan-aŋ (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), tagan-an (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 347].

Dulzon 1961: 177 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as finʸy-aŋ in (Pal.). All forms represent morphological plurals.

Dulzon 1961: 177 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The synonymous entry fen-ɨg (Dict., Kl.) most likely represents Yugh rather than Pumpokol. All forms represent morphological plurals.

S. Starostin 1995: 248 (*pǝnVŋ). Alternately reconstructed as *p^hǝnǝŋ in [Werner 2002: I, 337]. Distribution: Preserved everywhere except in Kott (where the meaning shifted to 'ashes' q.v.). Replacements: Kott tʰagan and the synonymous Arin form tan- are probably related to Kott tʰagar 'clay', Yugh tǝx id., and Pumpokol tɨk 'dirt, mud' < Proto-Yeniseian *tǝq- 'clay; mud' [S. Starostin 1995: 284]; the semantic shift {'clay' > 'sand'} seems plausible. Reconstruction shape: Consonantal correspondences are fully regular; root vocalism *ǝ is reconstructed primarily based on Ket-Yugh data. Semantics and structure: The form *pǝnǝŋ is obviously complex and, most likely, represents a plurale tantum, with *pǝn- as the original root.

Werner 2002: II, 314. Attested only in (Kh.). One of the few cases on the 100-wordlist where different data sources contradict each other in a manner that is significant for lexicostatistical processing. Since there is no way to determine the accuracy of the semantics, we have to include both forms as synonyms.

Werner 2002: II, 17. A highly irregular verb, cf. the paradigm: 1sg nˈi=ma 'I say' (< *di=ma with assimilation), 2sg kˈu=ma 'you say', but 3sg m. bˈa-da ~ bˈa-rä ~ bˈa-rʸa 'he says', 3sg f. mˈa-nä ~ mˈa-nʸa 'she says' (the subject markers are prefixed in the 1st and 2nd persons, but suffixed in the 3rd person). This verb is generally used in complex sentences to introduce indirect speech ("I say that...", etc.).

Werner 2011: 251. Cf. the paradigm: 1sg nˈi=ma 'I say' (< *di=ma with assimilation), 2sg kˈu=ma 'you say', 3sg m. nˈu=ma 'he says' (< *du=ma with assimilation), 3sg f. nˈa=ma 'she says' (< *da=ma). Like in Ket, this verb is generally used in complex sentences to introduce indirect speech ("I say that...", etc.).

Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=čagar-aŋ, imperative: a=l=čagar. The infinitive form čagar is glossed in the substantive meaning 'speech' [Castrén 1858: 215].

Not attested properly. Cf. the form qedˈɨlči (M., Dict., Kl.), glossed as 'speak' in [Dulzon 1961: 162]; there is no evidence for it being the default verb for 'to say' in Arin, nor is it even clear how it is to be morphologically segmented.

Not attested properly. Cf. the form kalˈu (Dict.), glossed as 'speak' in [Dulzon 1961: 162]; there is no evidence for it being the default verb for 'to say' in Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 269. Distribution: Preserved in all the languages where it is attested, but the original semantics raises doubts (see further notes). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, although the nature of -r- in Kott =čagar- is problematic: it is not identifiable as a suffix, yet it can hardly be part of the original root, since there are no traces of such a resonant in either Ket or Yugh. Semantics and structure: It is possible that the actual meaning of Proto-Yeniseian *saga- was closer to 'speak, talk' than to 'say', considering that in Ket-Yugh at least, the highly irregular verb *=ma 'to say' looks more archaic than *saga-; formally, however, it is difficult to project *=ma onto the Proto-Yeniseian level due to its conspicuous absence from Castrén's records of Kott material.

Werner 2002: II, 157; Werner 1993: 84. A composite verb, consisting of the "kernel" verbal stem -bet 'to do' and the "modifier" saɣ- conveying the main meaning 'say'. Quoted as sag-a-betʸ in [Castrén 1858: 185] (actually a Yugh form).

Werner 2011: 251. See notes on Ket.

0

Werner 2002: II, 228; Werner 1993: 101. (Quoted as {төн} in the latter source, clearly a misprint for {төӈ}). Verbal root -uŋ used only in conjunction with the preverb t=. Cf. particular forms: dˈiˑ=t=oŋ 'I see', past tense t=t=ˈɔ=lʸ=oŋ, d=bˈa=t=oŋ 'he sees me', past tense d=bˈa=t=ɔ=lʸ=oŋ, etc.

    The preverb-only complex verb ŋ=...ʁɔ ([Werner 2002: II, 29]; 1st p. sg. d=bˈa=ŋ=s=ɔ=ʁɔ, etc.) is also frequently translated as 'to see'. Superficial analysis of existing Ket texts, however, shows that this verb's primary meaning is that of intentional activity, i.e. 'to look', as opposed to t=...=uŋ 'see'; it is therefore ineligible for inclusion in the wordlist. Same goes for the preverbial verb k=...=dɔ ([Werner 2002: I, 194]; dˈi=ɣ=a=rʸo 'I look at him', etc.), whose main difference from ŋ=...ʁɔ is that it is generally used with animate objects ('to look at someone'), whereas ŋ=...ʁɔ is generally used in the meaning 'to look at smth.'.

Werner 2011: 277. Infinitive form, clearly segmentable into the preverb t= and the root =oŋ, cf. particular forms: diˑ=t=oŋ 'I see', past tense di=t=ˈɔ=r=ɔŋ, d=bˈa=t=oŋ 'he sees me', past tense d=bˈa=t=ɔ=r=ɔŋ, etc. Preverbial verbs k=... =dʸou and ŋ=... =ɔ ~ ŋ= ... =χɔ [Werner 2011: 277-278], as in Ket, both mean 'to look' rather than 'to see'.

Castrén 1858: 218. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: tʰ=o=l=oːŋ-aŋ, imperative: tʰ=aː=l=aŋ. As in Ket, the complex stem consists of the preverbal formative tʰ= and the root morpheme =aːŋ- ~ =oːŋ-.

Dulzon 1961: 160 (M., Kl.). Quoted as pongˈaulʸoŋ in (Dict.), with no specification as to the exact nature of the form. In (Kh.), the segmentally similar form peneulʸu is glossed as 'I see' [Werner 2002: II, 53]. If -lʸ- can be analyzed as the past tense marker, then we are dealing with a composite verb, where the first root is *pen- (?) and the second is a monovocalic *o / *u (?). Quite obscure.

Dulzon 1961: 160 (Dict.). The complete citation is buŋ ya=xal-di, which probably means "I see them"; -di is the 1st p. sg. suffix and ya= is segmentable as an auxiliary morpheme complex (cf. ya=iči-du (Dict.) 'I laugh' [Dulzon 1961: 182]). The root morpheme seems to be =xal-.

S. Starostin 1995: 290 (*t-uŋ). Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Kott, but apparently lost in Arin and Pumpokol (at least, as the default equivalent for 'to see'). Replacements: Both the Arin and Pumpokol forms are difficult to segment, and neither of the two has a decent etymology (S. Starostin's attempt to compare the Pumpokol form with Ket d-ba-ŋ-sɔ-ʁɔ 'I see', actually 'I look', in [YED # 1057], is based on a probably incorrect segmentation of the Pumpokol form and has to be rejected). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket-Yugh and Kott are regular; labial vocalism in Ket-Yugh corresponding to a in Kott generally reflects Proto-Yeniseian *ɔ. Semantics and structure: Ket-Yugh and Kott agree on the basic structure of the verb, consisting of the directional prefix *t= and the root *=ɔŋ, separated by grammatical morphemes such as the tense and conjugation markers.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Werner 2002: I, 167. Attested only in (Kh.). The first component is most likely čʸuyu 'grass', just as in čʸui=n=boson 'straw' [ibid.]. Since it is somewhat dubious that the word for 'seed' should contain a root with the meaning 'grass', the whole entry is quite suspicious.

Not attested.

Not reconstructible due to lack of data.

Werner 2002: II, 187; Werner 1993: 86. Composite verb; the "kernel" -ta is a very frequent formative part of (usually) static action verbs. Cf. specific forms: t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ta ~ t=sʸˈɛsʸ-tɛ 'he sits', past tense t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ɔ-lʸ-ta ~ t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ɔ-lʸ-tɛ, etc. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb k=...=ɣɜːnʸ 'to sit down' [Werner 2002: I, 402], formed with the preverb k= (t=k=ˈa=ddi=ɣɜːnʸ 'I sit down', etc.). Quoted as sesta, past tense sesogalta in [Castrén 1858: 186].

Werner 2011: 282. Composite verb, as in Ket. Cf. specific forms: 1sg di=sˈɛs-tɛ 'I sit', past tense di=sˈɛs-ɔʰː-r-tɛ, etc. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb kaʰːp ~ kˈaf-ɨŋ 'to sit down' [Werner 2011: 279].

Castrén 1858: 220. Polysemy: 'to sit / to live'. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=uy-aŋ, imperative: a=lʸ=ek (with suppletivism). Cf. also uŋ 'sitting, living' (glossed in [Castrén 1858: 203] as a participial form). Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb iː=g=pan-aŋ 'to sit down' [Castrén 1858: 200]. Cf. in older sources: yau 'I sit / I live' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 366] (actually, this seems to be the 3rd p. form rather than the 1st p.).

Werner 2002: I, 221. Attested only in (Kh.). To be segmented, probably, as a= (conjugation marker) + =ku- (root) + -m (a variant of 1st p. sg. marker -ŋ). The strange distinction between akum 'I sit' and akume 'I live', marked in the source, may be fictitious.

Dulzon 1961: 182 (Dict.). Glossed as 'I am sitting' (actually, more likely to be 'he is sitting', in the light of the personal ending -du). Structurally, the verb looks like a composite formation, with tɨt- as the main lexical root.

S. Starostin 1995: 297. Distribution: Preserved in Kott-Arin, but probably replaced in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol. Replacements: Other than Kott-Arin, the old root *xu- is also preserved in the Ket-Yugh infinitive form u-ŋ 'to sit' [Werner 2002: II, 380] (< *xu-/V/ŋ; Werner doubts that -ŋ is segmentable as a suffix, but this component is quite often met in various infinitives); this makes it the optimal candidate for the basic Proto-Yeniseian 'to sit', but also raises the issue of the replacement of the original paradigm in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol with *ses- [S. Starostin 1995: 279]. Reconstruction shape: Root-initial x- is reconstructed on the basis of the Arin form (a=ku-m, etc.).