Werner 2002: I, 393. Neuter gender. Plural form: iʔŋ. Polysemy: 'skin (human) / hide, pelt'. The plural form iʔŋ ~ iˑŋ may itself be used in the singulative meaning 'skin' as well [Werner 2002: I, 395]. Quoted as iː, pl. i-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161].
Werner 2011: 167. Neuter gender. Plural form: iŋgɔl-ɨŋ. Quoted as iyɔl5 ~ igɔl5, pl. iŋgɔl-ɨŋ5 in [Werner 1977: 151].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
The Yugh form corresponds directly not to Ket îˑ, but to Ket iˈŋɔlʸt ~ iˈŋɔlʸtǝ, pl. iˈŋɔlʸtǝ-ŋ 'skin (of animal)' [Werner 2002: I, 373]. Together, they may be traced back to a compound: *iʔŋ + *ʔɔʔl-t, where *ʔɔʔl = 'undressed, naked' [Werner 2002: II, 48]. If this scenario is correct, then the original meaning of Ket îˑ was simply 'hair (of animals)' (this is supported by external evidence); the compound expression 'hair-naked', originally denoting animal skin with all the hair removed, could already serve as the equivalent for both animal and human skin in Proto-KY. In Ket, however, this process went one step further, and the old word for 'animal hair' eventually became the main equivalent for 'skin' as such (including human skin).
Kott:
Not attested.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:
Not reconstructible due to lack of data. The Ket-Yugh word is comparable with Kott eːk 'hair' (see notes on 'hair'), meaning that the original meaning of the etymon was probably closer to 'body hair; animal hair, fur' than to 'skin'.
Werner 2002: II, 360-361; Werner 1993: 94. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. See notes on 'to lie' for paradigm details. Should be distinguished from the dynamic action verb usʸenʸ 'to go to sleep' [Werner 2002: II, 360], occasionally translated as simply 'sleep' in some sources as well (e. g. [Werner 1993: 113]), but in a somewhat inaccurate manner.
Werner 2011: 259. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. See notes on 'to lie' for paradigm details. As in Ket, should be distinguished from the dynamic action verb usan 'to go to sleep' [Werner 2011: 259].
Castrén 1858: 220. Same word as 'to lie' q.v. The entry is dubious, since Castrén only gives the meaning 'to lie'; however, the past form a=l=a=tan is so frequently glossed in older sources with the meaning 'I sleep' that this seriously looks like a flaw in Castrén's semantic notation. In the German-Yeniseian semantic index, he renders the meaning 'to sleep' (schlafen) as Kott čagal-aː-k-ŋ (p. 252), but on. p. 215 čagal-aː-k-ŋ is only translated as 'to drowse' (schlummern). External cognates in Ket also indirectly support the idea that dʸ=aːt-aŋ may have been the basic equivalent for both 'lie' and 'sleep', whereas čagal expressed a more specific meaning. Cf. the actual form in the older sources: a=l=ˈa=ten 'sleep' (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 371].
Dulzon 1961: 183 (M., Dict., Kl.). Glossed as 'I sleep'; segmentable as a= (conjugation marker) + =qod- (root) + -oŋ (1st p. sg. marker); in (Kh.), attested as a=xot without the personal ending [Werner 2002: II, 361]. There is also a suppletive - possibly infinitive - stem: kus (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Dulzon 1961: 183], also attested in the composite verb kus-paya (Kh.) 'I am drowsing' [Werner 2002: II, 359].
Pumpokol:bunˈe-du3
Dulzon 1961: 183 (Dict.). Cf. the suppletive - infinitive? - stem: utˈu 'to sleep' (Dict., Pal., Kl.), and the synonymous xotɨk 'to sleep' (Pal., Kl.) [ibid.]. The latter form of the two might actually be Yugh rather than proper Pumpokol.
Proto-Yeniseian:*=qɔt
See notes on 'to lie'; in Proto-Yeniseian, the meanings 'lie' and 'sleep' were most likely expressed by the same root.
Werner 2002: I, 337; Werner 1993: 123. Secondary synonym: ˈim-da 'small / fine / thin' [Werner 2002: I, 362]; this word has more limited distribution (applied to thin slices of meat, fine sand, etc.). Quoted as hɜna6 in [Werner 1977: 192]; as hɜne ~ hɜnɛ in [Castrén 1858: 174].
Dulzon 1961: 172 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). A predicative form (the suffix -du is a personal ending, i. e. = 'he is small'); the root is obviously the same as in xilˈuŋ-la 'child' (Dict., Pal.). The quasi-synonymous form fɨnem (Pal., Kl.) is most probably Yugh rather than proper Pumpokol.
Proto-Yeniseian:*pǝɲ- #
S. Starostin 1995: 248 (*pǝn-). Alternately reconstructed as *pʰǝnʸa in [Werner 2002: I, 337]. Distribution: Preserved only in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: (a) Although Arin kalqˈona and Pumpokol xilʸuŋ- 'small' seem to share the same root, the actual words are derived from words for 'child' (< Proto-Yeniseian *ʒVl 'child' [S. Starostin 1995: 308]) according to different models of derivation; therefore, it is difficult to regard this situation as either a shared innovation or a common archaism on the part of these two languages - the semantic derivation {'child' > 'small'} seems a more likely solution; (b) Kott kišlaː has no etymological connections whatsoever, not to mention a somewhat strange phonetic shape for a native Yeniseian word. Thus, only Ket-Yugh *pǝɲ- remains as a potential candidate for the original Proto-Yeniseian 'small'.
Werner 2002: I, 210; Werner 1993: 38. Neuter gender. Plural form: dˈu-nʸaŋ {дунеӈ}. Quoted as duʔ2, pl. duˑ-nʸeŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 146]; as duʔo in [Castrén 1858: 184].
S. Starostin 1995: 224 (*duʔ/χ/-). Alternately reconstructed as *duʔ ~ *duka in [Werner 2002: I, 210]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular; the only problem is with reconstructing the root-final segment - an issue unresolved in both S. Starostin's and Werner's reconstructions. Overall, the evidence for a final back consonant is weak and inconclusive. The Pumpokol form is clearly composite, with unclear segmentation (could be du-kar, which would then be comparable to Ket du-ɣɔt 'bonfire with smoke'). The transcription tug in some old sources on Kott could technically transcribe *tuʔ. Conversely, if there was a velar or uvular phoneme at the end of the root, we would have expected it to be preserved in at least some of the well-attested languages / dialects, but this does not seem to be the case. For now, it is preferable to think of *duʔ as the original structure.
Werner 2002: I, 393; Werner 1993: 47. Cf. specific forms: dˈi=kk=enʸ ~ diˑ=nʸ 'I stand', past tense d=ɔ=lʸ=iˑnʸ; kˈu=kk=enʸ ~ kuˑ=nʸ 'you stand' (sg.), past tense k=ɔ=lʸ=iˑnʸ, etc. Quoted as iˑn1 in [Werner 1977: 151]; as diː=ʔin, past tense du=o=lʸ=iːn in [Castrén 1858: 182].
Werner 2011: 289. Cf. specific forms: diˑ=fɨn 'I stand', past tense d=ɔʰː=r=fin; kuˑ=fɨn 'you stand' (sg.), past tense k=ɔʰː=r=fin, etc. Quoted as ifɨn6 in [Werner 1977: 151]; as dɨ=fen, past tense d=oː=r=fen in [Castrén 1858: 183].
Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=tek-ŋ, imperative: a=l=tek. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb f=a=ta-g-aːk-ŋ, past tense f=a=l=tay-aŋ, imperative f=a=l=ta [Castrén 1858: 225] (with suppletive structure of the paradigm: past tense and imperative reflect the preverb f= joined with the simple root =ta(y)-, whereas the present tense adds yet another auxiliary verbal stem, =aːk-). Cf. in older sources: ay yatˈɨk ~ yätɨk 'I am standing', etc. [Verner 1990: 273].
Dulzon 1961: 184. For this verb, several paradigmatic forms are attested in known sources: 1st p. sg. ai ˈä=tʸaŋ (M., Dict.), a=tʸaŋ (Kl.); 2nd p. sg. au ˈa=xun-ku (M., Dict.; the same form is also listed as the 3rd p. sg., but this is probably a mistake); 1st p. pl. aiŋ ä=tʸaŋ-taŋ (M., Dict.), 2nd p. pl. a=xoren-tʸaːŋ (M., Dict.), 3rd p. pl. itaŋ ä=tʸaŋ-taŋ (M., Dict.). Although some of the forms may be inaccurate, it still looks as if the paradigm was suppletive, with the root *=tʸaŋ encountered in the 1st p., the root *=xun- ~ *=xod- encountered in the 2nd p., and both encountered in the 3rd p.
Dulzon 1961: 184 (Dict.). For this verb, several paradigmatic forms are attested in known sources: 1st p. sg. ičˈa-diŋ-dˈi, 2nd p. sg. ˈue ičˈa-diŋ-du, 3rd p. sg. ˈadu ičˈa-diŋ-du, 1st p. pl. ˈadɨŋ ičˈa-diŋ-du-n, 2nd p. pl. ayˈaŋ ičˈa-diŋ-an. The structure of the stem ičadiŋ- remains unclear: it either contains two roots (/i/č/a/- and diŋ-), or the first several phonemes all constitute grammatical morphemes (e. g. a complex of conjugational markers and adverbial prefixes).
Proto-Yeniseian:*=dɨŋ ~ *=dɨk
S. Starostin 1995: 221 (*d/ɨ/k-). Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for Ket-Yugh. Replacements: The basic equivalent for 'stand' in Ket-Yugh (*ʔipɨn) finds no parallels in Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol, and so, technically, counts as a replacement, although from an unknown source. Reconstruction shape: The main problem is with the second consonant, attested as a velar nasal in Arin (=taŋ) and in Pumpokol (=diŋ), but as a velar stop in Kott (=tek-). One possible solution is that the original root shape was *=dɨkŋ, with different paths of cluster simplification followed in Arin, Pumpokol, and Kott; another is that nasalization or denasalization of the second root consonant was an irregular development in one or more of these languages, perhaps triggered by a sandhi process in some of the forms and then generalized throughout the paradigm. Since there seems to be no way to establish an optimal scenario, all three variants may be taken into consideration when submitting the root for further external comparison. Semantics and structure: One should also pay attention to the rather weird suppletivism (=tʸaŋ / =xun) in the Arin paradigm, which may be archaic, although the formation mechanism for such a paradigm remains completely unclear.
Werner 2002: II, 122; Werner 1993: 66. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɔːn {қоон}. Quoted as qɔʔ2 / qɔʁ4 (S.-Imb.), pl. qɔːn3 in [Werner 1977: 162]; as qoaɢ, pl. qoaɢ-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170].
Werner 2011: 291. Neuter gender. Plural form: χɔχ-ɨn. Quoted as χɔʰːχ4, pl. χɔχ-ɨn5 in [Werner 1977: 162]; as xoax, pl. xoax-an ~ xoaɢ-an in [Castrén 1858: 172].
Castrén 1858: 196. Plural form: alag-an ~ alak-ŋ. The word-initial sequence al= is segmented out as a fossilized prefix, due to external comparison and complete analogy with such cases as 'dog', 'bird' q.v., etc. Cf. in older sources: alagˈa-n (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), alaka-n (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 314] (plural forms).
Dulzon 1961: 167 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as ilʸ=koy in (Pal.); as il=xok in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 122]. Initial il= is the same fossilized prefix as in 'dog' q.v.
Dulzon 1961: 167 (Dict., Pal.). The form is clearly plural ('stars').
Proto-Yeniseian:*qɔːqa
S. Starostin 1995: 265. Alternately reconstructed as *qoʔǝɢǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 122]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. In Kott and Arin, the word shows fusion with the same obscure prefix as in the word for 'dog' q.v. (*al=qɔːqa ~ *il=qɔːqa).
Werner 2002: II, 312; Werner 1993: 106. Neuter gender. Plural form: tɜʔ-ŋ ~ tˈɜ-ŋaːnʸ {тъʼӈ}. Quoted as tɨʔsʸ2, pl. tɜʔŋ2 in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tɨɜs, pl. tɜaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 177].
Werner 2011: 290. Neuter gender. Plural form: čɜʔ-ŋ ~ *čɜ-ŋ-aːn. Quoted as čɨʔs2, pl. čɜʔŋ2 in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tʸɨɜs, pl. tʸɜaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 178].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *čɨʔs, pl. *čǝʔ-ŋ 'stone' (cf. the same vowel gradation in 'belly' and 'head' q.v.; -s is historically a detachable suffix).
S. Starostin 1995: 217 (*čɨʔs). Alternately reconstructed as *tʸɨʔs in [Werner 2002: II, 312]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (H. Werner separates the Arin and Pumpokol forms, but, according to S. Starostin's tables of correspondences, they are in complete agreement with the others). Reconstruction shape: S. Starostin reconstructs initial *č- in this root, but it must be noted that this is the only case where both Arin and Pumpokol show an initial q- or k- in their reflexation. We propose to amend the reconstruction to *cɨʔ-s (with the same consonant as in 'hair' and 'head' q.v.); this solution is more economic, since the only "irregularity" that it implies is the development *cɨʔ-s > šiːš in Kott instead of the expected *hiːš, which could be explained through additional assimilation / palatalization in a specific context. Semantics and structure: The original paradigm is reconstructible as sg. *cɨʔs, pl. *cɨʔŋ; this means that *-s is most likely a fossilized singulative suffix (cf. a similar case with the word for 'eye' q.v.).
Werner 2002: I, 392; Werner 1993: 44. Feminine gender. Plural form: iɣ-ˈan {иган}. Cf. iʔ, pl. ɛk-ŋ 'day' [Werner 2002: I, 389]. Quoted as iˑ1, pl. iɣˈan in [Werner 1977: 150]; as iː, pl. iːg-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161].
Werner 2011: 283. Feminine gender. Plural form: ig-aːn. Cf. iʰː, pl. ɛk-ŋ 'day' [Werner 2011: 298]. Quoted as i1 in [Werner 1977: 150].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔi (< *ʔiga), pl. *ʔiga-n 'sun'. The simpler version of the same stem, without the suffix *-a, is represented in Proto-KY *ʔiʔg, pl. *ʔɛk-ŋ 'day'.
Dulzon 1961: 183 (M., Dict., Pal.). Quoted as ˈega in (Kl.); as ɛga in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 392]. Cf. yi (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) 'day' [Dulzon 1961: 183] (historically, contains the same root).
Dulzon 1961: 183 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The form is somewhat strange, since it includes the predicative (adjectival) suffix -/e/m; H. Werner tentatively explains it as the predicative formation 'it is sunny'. Cf. ha (Dict.), xeg (Kl.) 'day' [Dulzon 1961: 165].
Proto-Yeniseian:*xiɢ-a
S. Starostin 1995: 296. Alternately reconstructed as *(h)egǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 392]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular; complete elimination of uvular articulation in Ket-Yugh vs. preservation of -g- in Kott corresponds to *ɢ in S. Starostin's system. Semantics and structure: Proto-Yeniseian *xiɢ-a 'sun' formally looks like an old suffixal derivative from *xiʔɢ 'day' [S. Starostin 1995: 296] > Ket iʔ, etc.
Werner 2002: II, 210; Werner 1993: 90. Within the paradigm, this infinitive form occupies the slot of the "modifier": cf. da=sʸˈuy-a-vet 'she swims', past tense da=sʸˈuy-ɔ-lʸ-bet (-bet ~ -vet is the verb-forming "kernel" with the original meaning 'to do, make'). (The old simple paradigm was still preserved in the Yugh dialect). This is the most frequently used and neutral verb in the meaning 'to swim' (other specific directional verbs are also found, e. g. 'swim with the current', etc., but we do not list these). Quoted as sʸuy4 (S.-Imb.) / sʸuːyi4 (Kur.) / sʸuːyǝ4 ~ sʸuyǝ4 (Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 177].
Werner 2011: 274. The simple paradigm (1sg di=y=suʔy 'I swim', past tense diˑ=r=suʔy, etc.) co-exists in Yugh with several extended variants, such as di=č=a=y=suʔy 'I swim' (with the preverb =č=) and di=suy=a=getʸ 'I swim'. Quoted as suʔy2 ~ suʰːy4 in [Werner 1977: 177].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *suːy ~ *suʔy 'to swim' (the variant with the glottal stop in Yugh finds no confirmation in Ket; its origins are unclear).
Castrén 1858: 203. Infinitive form; the finite tense forms also include the auxiliary stem -aːk-, e. g. ul=šuy-aːk-ŋ 'I swim', etc. The first component = uːl 'water' q.v.; the second component is etymologically related to Ket sʸuy q.v., but may also be the same verbal root as in Kott šuːyeŋ 'to wander, go astray' [Castrén 1858: 215].
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*suːy
S. Starostin 1995: 279. Alternately reconstructed as *suʔǝyǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 210]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages where it is attested, but not found in Arin or Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and trivial. Semantics and structure: In Kott, the verb only exists in conjunction with ul 'water'; this may be a hint at some earlier meaning, but it might just as well be a Kott innovation, carried out in order to reduce homonymy with multiple other words that have the same phonetic shape (šuy 'moon', šuy 'midge', etc.).
Werner 2002: I, 332; Werner 1993: 122. Neuter gender. Plural form: hˈuˑrʸ-aŋ {хуряӈ}. Quoted as huːt3, pl. huˑrʸ-ǝŋ1 / huˑd-ǝŋ1 (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 193]; as huːʔut in [Castrén 1858: 174]. This is the basic word denoting the 'tail' of animals; specific terms are also known for 'tail of bird': hiˑsʸ [Werner 2002: I, 320], and for 'tail of fish': hˈɔrap ~ hˈɔrɔp [Werner 2002: I, 326]. Neither of the two is eligible for inclusion.
Werner 2011: 271. Neuter gender. Plural form: fuˑd-iŋ. Quoted as fuːt, pl. fuˑd-iŋ1 ~ fuːd-iŋ3 in [Werner 1977: 193]; as fuːd, pl. fuːd-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 192]. This is the basic word denoting the 'tail' of animals; specific terms are also known for 'tail of bird': fis [Werner 2011: 271], and for 'tail of fish': fɔyɔp [Werner 2011: 271]. Neither of the two is eligible for inclusion.
Castrén 1858: 226. Plural form: fugay-aŋ ~ fukay-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: pukˈay (M., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 385]. The form pis 'tail' (Kh.), listed ibid., is clearly related to Ket-Yugh *pis 'tail of bird' and, most likely, referred to that particular meaning in Kott as well.
Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Kl.). Quoted as it=bugey (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: I, 332]; the first component is obscure.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*puɢ-aʒ
S. Starostin 1995: 253 (*puɢVʒ). Alternately reconstructed as *pʰuk-at ~ *pʰuk-ay in [Werner 2002: I, 332]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, but not attested in Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: All correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: The stem ends in the same morpheme that is also found in Ket ulʸ-et = Kott ul-ay 'rib' (< Proto-Yeniseian *ʔuʎ-aʒ [S. Starostin 1995: 200]) and several other words denoting body parts ('heel', 'jaw', 'cheek', etc.); according to the phonetic correspondences laid out by S. Starostin, this suffix reflects Proto-Yeniseian *-aʒ and may not be equated with *ʔaʔd 'bone' q.v., as suggested by H. Werner; consequently, Werner's interpretation of the word as a compound formation from an unattested root with the hypothetical meaning 'fluffy, woolly' + 'bone' remains unfounded.
Werner 2002: II, 294; Werner 1993: 102. Within the standard triple opposition in Ket, this pronoun indicates the intermediate (not-too-distant from the speaker) degree of deixis. The usual attributive forms are: tuˑ-rʸ (masc. sg.), tˈu-rʸe (fem. / neuter sg.), tˈu-nʸa (pl.). The masc. attributive form is quoted as tuˑdǝ1 (Bak., Sur.) / tuˑrʸǝ1 (Kur.) / tuˑrʸ1 (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 184]. Frequently translated as 'this' (Russian этот), but we still include it in the wordlist under the Swadesh meaning 'that', since it forms a frequent opposition with the near-deixis pronoun kiˑ 'this' q.v.
Werner 2011: 104. The usual attributive forms are: tuˑt (masc. sg.), tˈu-da ~ tu-dˈa (fem. sg.), tˈu-na ~ tu-nˈa (pl.). The masc. attributive form is quoted as tuˑt1 in [Werner 1977: 184]; as tuː-t ~ tuː-du, pl. tˈu-na in [Castrén 1858: 50].
Castrén 1858: 55. Masculine form; the feminine equivalent is unʸa, the plural form is uni-oŋ. The same root is responsible for the formation of the 3rd p. pronouns: uy-u 'he', uy-a 'she', uni-aŋ 'they'. Internal reconstruction suggests that the original stem is *ʔu-, with the plural variant *ʔu-n; these are further combined with markers of gender and (superfluous) plural suffixes and subject to some analogical levelling.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*ʔu
The Ket-Yugh and Kott systems of demonstrative pronouns (for Arin and Pumpokol, these systems remain unknown) are, upon first sight, so dissimilar that no adequate protolanguage reconstruction seems possible. However, a more thorough comparison of Ket-Yugh *ka- ~ *qa- 'that (far away)' / *tu- 'that / this (intermediate)' / *ki- 'this' with Kott *u- 'that' / *i- 'this' shows that the systems are still compatible, with two assumptions: (a) that Kott has reduced the original tripartite system to a binary opposition; (b) that the Ket-Yugh forms are composite in origin, and reflect a fusion of three original vocalic stems (*a 'that /far away/', *u 'that /intermediate/', *i 'this'; typologically, this is a very natural system) with additional monoconsonantal "modifiers". These formerly separate morphemes (*k-, *t-, maybe also *q-) could have an adverbial origin, and might even be etymologically identical with some of the Yeniseian verbal prefixes. Any alternative solution would either have to resort to substrate hypotheses (borrowing of the entire system of demonstratives in either Ket-Yugh or Kott from an unknown source) or to projecting all of the attested morphemes onto the Proto-Yeniseian level, increasing their overall count to unrealistic levels. For that reason, we tentatively reconstruct the tripartite system *ʔa 'that (far away)', *ʔu 'that (intermediate)', *ʔi 'this' for Proto-Yeniseian.
Werner 2002: II, 80. Within the standard triple opposition in Ket, this pronoun indicates the "far away from the speaker" degree of deixis. The usual attributive forms are: qaˑ-rʸ (masc. sg.), qa-rʸa (fem. / neuter sg.), qa-nʸa (pl.).
Werner 2011: 186. The usual attributive forms are: kaˑt (masc. sg.), ka-dˈa (fem. sg.), ka-nˈa (pl.). The masc. attributive form is quoted as kaˑt1 in [Werner 1977: 153]; as kaː-t ~ kaː-du, pl. kˈa-na in [Castrén 1858: 50].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ka- 'that (far away)' (*ka-du masc., *ka-da fem., *ka-na pl.). The uvular consonant in Ket, irregularly corresponding to the velar consonant in Yugh, looks like an innovation: most of the secondary deictic adverbs formed from the same stem have k- in both dialects (cf. Ket ka-nʸilʸ 'thence' = Yugh ka-nʸǝːr and others), and there are virtually no parallels for the stem qa- in Yugh or other Yeniseian languages. It is not clear if Ket qaˑ is an entirely different root (of unknown origin) or if it is the result of an expressive transformation of the root ("sound-symbolic" use of the uvular sound to express the idea of faraway distance is not out of the question).
Werner 2002: I, 435; Werner 1993: 52. Within the standard triple opposition in Ket, this pronoun indicates the "near the speaker" degree of deixis. The usual attributive forms are: kiˑ-rʸ (masc. sg.), kˈi-rʸe (fem. / neuter sg.), kˈi-nʸa (pl.). The masc. attributive form is quoted as kiˑdǝ1 (Bak., Sur.) / kiˑrʸǝ1 (Kur.) / kiˑrʸ1 (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 153].
Werner 2011: 104. The usual attributive forms are: kiˑt (masc. sg.), kˈi-da ~ ki-dˈa (fem. sg.), kˈi-na ~ ki-nˈa (pl.). The masc. attributive form is quoted as kiˑt1 in [Werner 1977: 153]; as kiː-t ~ kiː-du, pl. kˈi-na in [Castrén 1858: 50].
Castrén 1858: 54. Masculine form; the feminine equivalent is inʸa, the plural form is inni-aŋ. The simpler form, stripped of gender and number suffixes, is attested as the adverb ini 'here' [ibid.]; comparison with other demonstrative stems (e. g. 'that' q.v.) shows that the word can be further segmented into the original root *ʔi- and the fossilized suffixal extension *-n(i)-.
Werner 2002: II, 318; Werner 1993: 107. Declinable personal pronoun with the same root throughout the paradigm. Quoted as uˑ {у} in [Werner 1977: 185]; as uːge in [Castrén 1858: 48]. The possessive pronoun, represented by an etymologically different stem uk (~ uɣɨ) [Werner 2002: II, 327], is not eligible for inclusion.
Werner 2011: 108. The possessive pronoun, represented by an etymologically different stem uk ~ ug-ɨ [Werner 2011: 102], is not eligible for inclusion. Quoted as u {у} in [Werner 1977: 185].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔu 'thou' (opposed to the possessive stem *ʔuk 'your').
S. Starostin 1995: 185. Alternately reconstructed as *ǝg/ǝ/ ~ *ug/ǝ/ in [Werner 2002: II, 318]; this reconstruction is transparently influenced by the attested reflexations of the possessive stem and cannot be accepted for the Proto-Yeniseian level. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The "diphthongic" structure of this pronoun is rather unique for Proto-Yeniseian, so the regularity of the correspondences cannot be ascertained, but no better reconstruction can probably explain the discrepancy between Ket-Yugh *ʔu and Kott-Arin *au. Semantics and structure: The form *ʔaw represents the direct stem of the 2nd p. sg. pronoun. The etymologically different oblique stem, lost in Kott-Arin, is still preserved in Ket-Yugh as *ʔuk (possessive pronoun: 'your') or *ku (verbal prefix of subject or object). These forms may have been influenced by Ket-Yugh *ʔu 'you', but their velar constituent is completely autonomous, and there is no direct or indirect evidence that it was, at any time, present in the direct stem as well.
Werner 2002: I, 272; Werner 1993: 43. Feminine gender. Plural form: ɛ̂y {эй}. Quoted as eˑy1, pl. ɛːyi4 (Kur.) / ɛːyǝ4 ~ ɛyǝ4 (Bak., Sur.) / ɛy4 (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 147]; as ei, pl. eɛi ~ ey-ɛŋ ~ eɛy-ɛŋ in [Castrén 1858: 160].
S. Starostin 1995: 187; Werner 2002: I, 272 (*ey). Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol. Replacements: In Proto-Kott-Arin, *ʔey was replaced by *alup (vocalism provisionally follows the Kott form rather than the controversial Arin variants), of unclear origin. Proto-Yeniseian *ʔey 'tongue' is still preserved in Kott ey, pl. eːy-aŋ, but only in the meaning 'voice; sound' [Castrén 1858: 199]; since the semantic shift {'tongue' > 'voice'} (the actual meaning in Castrén's vocabulary may have been 'speech, language') is more probable than the opposite, this increases the chances of *ʔey as the original Proto-Yeniseian equivalent for 'tongue'. Reconstruction shape: All correspondences are regular.
Werner 2002: I, 382; Werner 1993: 49. Neuter gender. Plural form: iˑt-eŋ {итэӈ ~ итаӈ}. Quoted as it4 (S.-Imb.) / iːti4 (N.-Imb.) / iːtǝ4 ~ itǝ4 (Bak., Sur.), pl. iˑt-eŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 152]; as iːʔet ~ iːti, pl. iːt-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161].
Werner 2002: I, 382. Attested only in (Kh.); the form is plural ('teeth').
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*ʔiːti
S. Starostin 1995: 195. Alternately reconstructed as *iʔǝtǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 382]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, but not attested in Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular (vocalism of the second syllable is somewhat questionable; the exact protoform could be either *ʔiːti or *ʔiːte).
Werner 2002: II, 50; Werner 1993: 83. Masculine gender. Plural form: aʔq {аʼқ} (suppletive paradigm on the synchronic level). Quoted as oˑksʸ1, pl. aʔq2 in [Werner 1977: 133, 171]; as uksʸ ~ uoksʸ in [Castrén 1858: 164].
Werner 2011: 83. Masculine gender. Plural form: aʔχ (suppletive paradigm on the synchronic level). Quoted as oksɨ1, pl. aʔχ2 ~ aʔq2 in [Werner 1977: 133, 171]; as uks, pl. aq in [Castrén 1858: 164].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔoksi, pl. *ʔaʔq 'tree'. Suppletive paradigm; despite phonetic similarity, the two forms are irreconcilable on the Ket-Yugh level.
Dulzon 1961: 165 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). The "prefixal" component is really kus 'one' q.v.; the simple form ˈošče (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) is listed in all sources in the meaning 'forest' [Dulzon 1961: 170]. Quoted as otši 'tree / forest' (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: II, 50].
Dulzon 1961: 165 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Polysemy: 'tree / forest', although the presence of the plural marker -/o/n indicates that the primary semantics here is plural. The quasi-synonymous form oksɨ (Pal., Kl.) 'tree', as well as ak (Pal., Kl.) 'forest', is really Yugh rather than proper Pumpokol.
Proto-Yeniseian:*ʔɔksi
S. Starostin 1995: 198. Alternately reconstructed as *(x)oksi ~ *(x)otsi in [Werner 2002: II, 50]. Distribution: Preserved everywhere except in Pumpokol, where the suppletive plural has replaced the old singular form. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular; the correspondence "Ket-Yugh -ks- : Kott-Arin č ~ tč ~ šč" is recurrent and normally reflects Proto-Yeniseian *-ks-. Semantics and structure: The word 'tree' was suppletive on the Proto-Yeniseian level; the plural form is reconstructed as *xaʔq > Ket-Yugh *ʔaʔq, Kott ak ~ ax, Pumpokol hox- in hox-on; possibly also Arin oː (Kh.) 'firewood' [S. Starostin 1995: 295]. In Arin, the situation seems to have been as follows: (a) original *xaʔq has undergone the shift {'trees, wood' > 'firewood'}; (b) the old singular form ošče 'tree' consequently shifted to denoting the plural 'trees, wood'; (c) a new singulative was formed by the prefixation of kus= 'one' to ošče 'trees'.
All attempts by S. Starostin and H. Werner to trace *ʔɔksi and *xaʔq back to the same lexical root through various scenarios of internal reconstruction are problematic and ultimately unnecessary: the two forms share a general phonetic similarity, but do not really have even a single segment in common, and suppletive formations for 'tree (sg.)' and 'forest / trees (coll.)' are well attested throughout the world. It should be noted that, in [YED # 139, 759], S. Starostin himself finally abandoned the idea (based on external Sino-Caucasian evidence, although some of that evidence is questionable in itself).
Dulzon 1961: 164 (Dict., Kl.). Incorrectly copied as nine-aŋ in (Pal.).
Proto-Yeniseian:*xɨn-a
S. Starostin 1995: 296. Alternately reconstructed as *(k)ɨn in [Werner 2002: II, 423]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Initial *x- is reconstructed based on the presence of back consonants in Arin and Pumpokol. Semantics and structure: The suffix *-a is a common element in the formation of Yeniseian numerals; the original root is simply *xɨn-.
Werner 2002: I, 261; Werner 1993: 43. Infinitive form, frequently used as the "modifier" in composite verbs, e. g. ˈeiŋ-ba-ɣ-ˈa-qan 'I am preparing to go', etc. Quoted as eˑy-eŋ1 ~ ɛy-eŋ5 in [Werner 1977: 148].
Werner 2011: 151. Infinitive form, frequently used as the "modifier" in composite verbs, e. g. eyiŋ-ba-g-a-χan 'I am preparing to go', etc. Quoted as ey-iŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 148].
Castrén 1858: 199. 1st p. sg. Cf. the past tense: eä=l=a=xeːy-aŋ, imperative: eä=l=xex ~ eä=l=xeg. The verb consists of two stems: basic stem =xeːy- and "modifying" stem eä-.
Arin:
Not attested properly. In [Dulzon 1961: 168], there is a form that is glossed as the infinitive 'to go': ˈunqut (M., Dict.); however, it coincides completely with the adverb ˈunqut 'in front of' (M., Dict., Kl.) [Dulzon 1961: 161], and in the light of this circumstance per se as well as external comparison, we prefer to exclude this form due to a high risk of inaccurate attestation.
S. Starostin 1995: 231 (*heyVŋ). Distribution: Probably preserved in both Ket-Yugh and Kott, but not attested in Arin; the Pumpokol situation is dubious. Reconstruction shape: The verbs of movement form a rather complex system both in Ket-Yugh (where we at least have sufficient data) and in Kott (where Castrén's description seems very sketchy and approximate in terms of semantics). Here, we only concentrate on morphemes that seem to have reflexes both in Ket-Yugh and in Kott. As it is, Proto-Yeniseian *hey- 'to go' is reconstructible based on: (a) the Ket-Yugh infinitive (verbal noun) form *ʔey-iŋ 'to go', where -Vŋ is an auxiliary formant frequently seen in infinitives; (b) the exactly corresponding Kott infinitive hey-aŋ; (c) possibly also Kott eä- in eä-xeːy-aŋ < *hey-a-key-aŋ (?), although the deletion of h- in this case would be rather strange.
Werner 2002: I, 261; Werner 1993: 28. This stem is used in finite forms of the paradigm, cf.: bɔ=ɣ=ˈä=tnʸ ~ bɔ=ɣ=ˈɔ=tnʸ {боготнь} 'I go', past tense bɔ=ɣ=ˈɔ=nʸ (< *bɔ=ɣ=ɔ=nʸ=tnʸ), etc. The most archaic phonetic variant of the root is seen in the North Ket past tense form bɔ=ɣ=ˈɔ=n=den (without reduction of the root vowel).
Castrén 1858: 126. The paradigm is: 1st p. sg. present tense iːn-aŋ, 1st p. pl. oŋ=in-toŋ (with double marking of plural); 1st p. sg. past tense a=l=i=g=iːn-aŋ, 1st p. pl. a=l=oŋ=in-toŋ; imperative a=l=ta (with suppletion?). The lexical difference between eä=...xeːy- and =in- is not explained in Castrén's description; we have to accept both words as technical synonyms. Cf. also a different form in the older sources: anuga 'to go' (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 316], where -n- is quite likely the past tense affix (verbs are generally noted in past tense in these sources), but the root remains unclear.
Arin:
Pumpokol:
Proto-Yeniseian:*=ʒe- ~ *=ʒen #
Distribution: Attested in Ket-Yugh and perhaps in Kott. Reconstruction shape: This is a highly tentative reconstruction that can, nevertheless, reasonably reconcile two of the most basic Ket-Yugh and Kott equivalents for the meaning 'to go'. Namely, the Kott root *=in- (most explicitly seen in the 3rd p. form: dʸä=in-i 'he goes') and Ket-Yugh *=de(n) may be etymologized together if the root-initial consonant is reconstructed as *ʒ. In this case, the development *=ʒen > *=den in Ket-Yugh is completely regular, and in Kott, according to S. Starostin's correspondences, *=ʒen should have yielded *=yen, with subsequent contractions (*i=yen-aŋ 'I go' > iːnaŋ, etc.). There are no significant problems with this scenario, other than the fact that *ʒ is a relatively rare phoneme in Proto-Yeniseian (but see 'I').
Build tree