Werner 2002: I, 460; Werner 1993: 58. Neuter gender. Plural form: kˈɜyg-enʸ ~ kˈɜyg-anʸ-iŋ {къгень}. Quoted as kɜyga₅, pl. kɜyg-enʸ₅ 'head' in [Werner 1977: 155]. There is also a clearly related dialectal word kˈɜye {къе}, pl. kˈɜyenʸ ~ kˈɜyenʸ-aŋ [Werner 2002: I, 460], glossed as 'head / chief'.

    This is a relatively recent Ket innovation in the meaning 'head'. The old word (whose antiquity is proven by cognates in Yugh and Kott) is still attested in [Castrén 1858: 178] as tʸɨʔe, pl. tʸɜ-aŋ; was also attested by K. Donner as tɨʔ [Werner 2002: II, 312]; and attested by Werner in the Kur. dialect as tɨʔ₂ ~ tuʔ₂ [Werner 1977: 185], possibly as an archaism.

Werner 2011: 198. Neuter gender. Plural form: čɜʔ-ŋ. Quoted as čɨʔ₂, pl. čɜʔ-ŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 185].

Castrén 1858: 216. Plural form: tagay-aŋ ~ takay-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: tagˈay (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), tagay (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 299].

Dulzon 1961: 162 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Also transcribed as olkä in P. Strahlenberg's short wordlist. Questionable; in (Kh.), the equivalent for 'head' is a completely different word - ke=dake [Werner 2002: I, 167], where ke= could, perhaps, be the possessive prefix ('your'), and =dake is a perfect match for Kott tag-ai 'head'. If both forms were indeed present in the same Arin dialects, this could hint at inaccurate semantic notation.

Dulzon 1961: 162 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 214 (*c/ɨ/ʔɢ-). Alternately reconstructed as *tʸVg- in [Werner 2002: I, 167]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh (although mostly replaced in modern Ket), Kott, and possibly Arin (or at least one of the Arin dialects). Replacements: S. Starostin [1995: 237] reconstructs Proto-Yeniseian *k[ǝ]rʸga 'head' on the basis of Ket kˈɜyga, Arin kˈolkʸaː and Pumpokol kˈolka. This is a difficult etymological decision, since it surmises two 'heads' for Proto-Yeniseian: *k[ǝ]rʸga and *cɨʔɢe, with severely criss-crossed ("non-tree-like") distribution and no well-defined semantic difference. However, there are phonetic reasons to doubt the validity of *k[ǝ]rʸga: namely, Ket -y- does not correspond to Arin or Pumpokol -l-, and explaining it as the result of a specific development in a cluster does not work well, since (1) this is the only example of such a cluster and (2) in no other instances, regardless of the phonetic context, do Yeniseian liquid resonants yield a palatal glide in Ket. Considering that attested historical evidence clearly shows that Ket kˈɜyga in the meaning 'head' is a recent innovation, it makes more sense to analyze it as a derivative from older kɜye 'top' (see notes on Ket-Yugh).

   As for the Arin and Pumpokol forms, they, too, present some problems. First, this is the only genuine exclusive isogloss between the two languages on the Swadesh list, which is already suspicious (on the whole, lexicostatistics shows that Arin and Pumpokol belong to different primary branches). Second, Arin data are contradictory: Loskutov's recordings feature ke=dake, cognate with Kott tagay, in the meaning 'head'. This can be explained in several ways: (a) the normal Arin word for 'head' was =dake, whereas kˈolkʸaː is a Pumpokol borrowing in some of the Arin dialects (not very likely, since ascertained lexical contacts between Arin and Pumpokol are non-existent); (b) the very presence of Arin kˈolkʸaː in XVIIIth century sources is a mistake (e. g. a Pumpokol word was accidentally glossed as Arin - also not very likely, since the transcriptions for Arin and Pumpokol items are slightly different); (c) the most likely solution is that *kolka 'head' was a local "Southern" areal isogloss, possibly of non-Yeniseian origin, that managed to get diffused in the Arin/Pumpokol area. This is a provisional solution, and its confirmation or rejection will depend on the further study of areal connections between Yeniseian and "Ural-Altaic" languages. Nevertheless, since the suggestion is conjectural and no exact source of borrowing can be pinned down at the moment, we still count Arin and Pumpokol forms as a lexicostatistical match (but not cognate with Ket).

   Reconstruction shape: Initial *c- is reconstructed, following S. Starostin, on the basis of the correspondence "Ket-Yugh č- : Kott t-" (same as in 'fish' q.v.). Word-medial uvular reflects the correspondence of Kott velar -k- to absolute zero in Ket-Yugh. Reconstruction of the vocalism is somewhat less certain; the current scheme rests on the assumption of archaicity of Ket-Yugh vocalism in the first syllable and of a front vowel in the original second syllable, as per Kott and Arin evidence.

Werner 2002: I, 287 (listed as =g...=da); Werner 1993: 21. Cf. actual forms such as ba=ɣ=ˈa=b=da ~ ba=g=ˈa=b=da {багабдэ} 'I hear it', past tense ba=ɣ=ɔ=v=ˈi=lʸ=da, a=ɣ=ˈa=b=da 'he hears it', etc. The proper root is =da; =g= ~ =ɣ= (~ =k=) is the obligatory preverb following the indirect object prefixes. (The verb has no "proper" subject markers and may be formally analyzed as impersonal: 'for-me-it-is-heard', 'for-him-it-is-heard', etc.). Quoted as ba=g=aː=p=ti, past tense ba=g=a=b=i=l=di in [Castrén 1858: 188]. The strange vocalic variation (=da ~ =dɛ ~ =di) probably has to do with the occasional suffixation of the intransitive/passive suffix -i, contracting with the root vowel. Not to be confused with ˈɛq-saq, ˈɛq-tiy 'to listen' [Werner 2002: I, 237].

Werner 2011: 181. Cf. actual forms such as ba=g=aʰː=b=de 'I hear it', past tense ba=g=ɔ=b=iʰː=r=de, a=g=aʰː=b=de 'he hears it', etc. The proper root is =de; =g= is the obligatory preverb following the indirect object prefixes. (As in Ket, the verb has no "proper" subject markers and may be formally analyzed as impersonal: 'for-me-it-is-heard', 'for-him-it-is-heard', etc.).

Castrén 1858: 211. Impersonal form (literally 'it is heard'). Past tense: h=oː=l=a-ti. Cf. in older sources: goloti 'I hear' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 368] (actually = hoːlati 'it was heard').

Werner 2002: I, 326. Attested only in (Kh.); the form is glossed as 1st p. sg. 'I hear'; final -m possibly represents the personal ending; the rest of the form is hard to segment (looks like a reduplication, but that would be fairly strange for a form with the meaning 'I hear').

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 291 (*tV). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (not attested in Pumpokol, but the root may be present in the form hiti-fun 'to be silent', literally 'without hearing'). The Arin form is also somewhat dubious: it is formally possible to see traces of *=ta in it, but a complete and transparent morphological analysis is implausible. Reconstruction shape: Of the two encountered variants of the verbal stem (*=ta and *=ti), the second is explicable as the result of replacement of the original root vowel with the Proto-Yeniseian passive / intransitive marker *-i. Both variants of the stem may have already been present in Proto-Yeniseian, but *=ta is the better choice for the original form of the root. Semantics and structure: The basic semantics of the root must have been impersonal/passive ('to be heard').

Werner 2002: I, 332; Werner 1993: 121. Neuter or feminine gender. Plural form: huː ~ huːn {хуун}. Quoted as huˑ₁, pl. huː₃ ~ huːn₃ in [Werner 1977: 193]; as huː, pl. huːgaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 175. Neuter gender. Plural form: fuːn. Quoted as fu₁, pl. fuː-n₃ in [Werner 1977: 193]; as fuː, pl. fuː-n in [Castrén 1858: 192].

Castrén 1858: 214. Plural form: šitap-ˈaŋ. Cf. in older sources: šitabu (M., Dict., Kl.), šitabii (Pal., Dict.), šitapu (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 365].

Dulzon 1961: 181 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Transcribed as šenebo in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 441] - clearly the same word.

Dulzon 1961: 181 (Dict., Pal.). Slightly dubious (the form could really be Yugh).

S. Starostin 1995: 251 (*p[u]-). Alternately reconstructed as *pʰu in [Werner 2002: I, 332]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol. Replacements: Kott šitap ~ šitabu and Arin šenougbu ~ šenebu are forms that are quite probably etymologically connected, even if the second consonant in this complex structure remains undecipherable. They are, furthermore, phonetically similar to Ket sʸɛdap 'spleen; pancreas' [Werner 2002: II, 186], and also correspond well enough except for the second consonant. It is possible that all of these forms reflect an original compound structure with a non-trivial consonant cluster (on a morphemic boundary?), which is why the resulting correspondences are relatively unique. If the Arin form, in particular, may be interpreted as an obscure way of transcribing something like *senǝŋ-bu, it could be seen as a historical collocation of *seŋ/Vn/ 'liver' [S. Starostin 1995: 272] + *pu 'heart'. But this analysis is not so well applicable to the Kott form, since it does not explain denasalization of the word-medial resonant. Altogether, evidence for the presence of the original *pu 'heart' somewhere within this stem is scarce. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: It is not a certified fact, despite the confidence in [S. Starostin 1995: 251], that Ket-Yugh / Pumpokol *pu 'heart' is etymologically connected with *pɨy 'belly' q.v., despite phonetic similarity and semantic proximity. For the time being, it is preferable to judge it as an individual root with a precise Swadesh meaning ('heart') and not a member of any Proto-Yeniseian "word-family".

Werner 2002: II, 122; Werner 1993: 66. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɔʔŋ {қоʼӈ}. Quoted as qɔʔ₂, pl. qɔʔ-ŋ₂ ~ qɔ-ŋ-en₅ in [Werner 1977: 162]; as qoʔa, pl. qoʔa-ŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170].

Werner 2011: 181. Neuter gender. Dual form: χɔʔ-ŋ, plural form: χɔŋ-ɨn. It is interesting that in [Werner 1977: 162], the form χɔʔ-ŋ₂ is actually listed as singular 'horn', and the form χɔŋ-ɨn₅ as plural 'horns' (with no distinction between "proper" plural and dual); neither is there any mention of Yugh sg. χɔʔ in [Werner 2002: II, 122].

Castrén 1858: 207. Genitive: hau-ʔi, plural form: hoː-k-ŋ. Polysemy: 'horn / thumb / big toe'.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 303 (*χɔʔ). Alternately reconstructed as *qoʔ in [Werner 2002: II, 122]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages where attested, but not found in Arin or Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, although the diphthong -au in Kott is somewhat strange.

Werner 2002: I, 72; Werner 1993: 20. Positional variants include arʸ ~ ad ~ äˑ. Declinable personal pronoun with the same root throughout the paradigm. The possessive pronoun, represented by an etymologically different stem ab (~ ap ~ av) [Werner 2002: I, 11], is not eligible for inclusion. Quoted as aˑt₁ ~ aˑ₁ in [Werner 1977: 136]; as aːde in [Castrén 1858: 159].

Werner 2011: 183. Declinable personal pronoun with the same root throughout the paradigm. The possessive pronoun, represented by an etymologically different stem ab (~ ap) [Werner 2011: 183], is not eligible for inclusion. Quoted as at₁ in [Werner 1977: 136].

Castrén 1858: 195. Cf. a-n-še 'my(own)' [Castrén 1858: 198]; m-in-šo 'my' (formed from m-, an entirely different stem).

Dulzon 1961: 189 (M., Dict., Kl.). Also quoted as ä in (Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 189 (Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 185. Alternately reconstructed as *ad/ǝ/ ~ *adʸ/ǝ/ in [Werner 2002: I, 72]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the final consonant is questionable. The correspondence "Ket-Yugh + Pumpokol *-d : Kott-Arin *-y" is interpreted by S. Starostin as a reflexation of the rare Proto-Yeniseian phoneme *-ʒ in word-final position, but in reality it is practically indistinguishable from word-final *-ǯ, so that the reconstruction might ultimately be amended to *ʔaǯ. Semantics and structure: The protoform *ʔaʒ (or *ʔaǯ) reflects the direct stem of the Proto-Yeniseian 1st p. sg. pronoun, and it also served as the basis for certain series of subject and object verbal markers. It is opposed to the indirect (possessive) stem that was, already on the Proto-Yeniseian level, represented by two allomorphs in complementary distribution: *b- (word-initially) vs. *-ŋ (word-finally); for more details, see [S. Starostin 1995: 205].

Werner 2002: I, 226; Werner 1993: 131. Cf. such forms as d=ˈaŋ-sʸ-ey 'he kills them', past tense d=ˈaŋ=ɢ=ey; dˈu=rʸ=iy 'he kills me', past tense t=qˈɔ=rʸ=ey. Quoted as ɛ̂y₄ (S.-Imb.) / ɛːyi₄ (Kur.) / ɛːye₄ ~ ɛye₄ (Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 148].

    Contrary to [Werner 2002: II, 123], there is no verb qɔː 'to kill' in Ket that could be related to qɔ- 'to die' q.v.: the verbal stem qɔː means 'to hunt', 'to procure game', etc., but never 'to kill' as such, and there is no internal evidence (and, in fact, very shaky external evidence) that this verb could have ever meant 'to kill'. It is interesting that the morpheme =qɔ= (~ =ɢ=) is encountered in the past tense paradigm of ɛ̂y, but in this case, it occupies the slot of the past tense marker, and is better treated as a very archaic, "relict" grammatical morpheme. (But even if it can be equated with qɔ- 'to die', after an old hypothesis of Ye. Kreynovich, there is still no evidence of it meaning 'kill' per se: the past stem of the verb would simply be interpreted as 'die-kill').

Werner 2011: 302. Cf. paradigmatic forms: 1sg. diˑ-y-ey 'I kill', past tense d=ˈaŋŋ-ey; dˈu=g=a=y=ey 'he kills him', past tense d=ˈa=χ=ey; d=aŋ=ɨ=s=ey 'he kills them', past tense d=aŋ=ŋ=ey (< *d=aŋ=χ=ey), etc. Quoted as ɛʰːy₄ in [Werner 1977: 148].

Castrén 1858: 202. 1st p. sg. Cf. the past tense: oga-ʔaː-l-a-če-aŋ, imperative: oga-ʔaː-l-čex, infinitive: ok-čex. A compound formation: the second stem (-če- / -čex) is a frequent formative in verbs denoting forceful action with a sharp object ('to stick', 'to shave', etc.), the first one (og/a/-) carries the main meaning of 'killing'. Cf. in older sources: okča git 'killer' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 382] (where git = 'person' q.v.).

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 190. Alternately reconstructed as *eʔǝyǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 226]. Distribution: Attested only in Ket-Yugh; not attested in either Arin or Pumpokol, and most likely replaced in Kott. Replacements: Although formal proof of the Kott equivalent for 'to kill' being less archaic than the one in Ket-Yugh is missing, this scenario is nevertheless more probable than the opposite one, since the Ket-Yugh verb paradigm is simple (not a compound formation) and beset with unique irregularities, whereas in Kott the verb is fully regular and belongs to the "newer" stock of compound formations. If S. Starostin is right in equating Kott oga- with Ket qɔː, Yugh χoː 'to hunt' < Proto-Yeniseian *qoːɢV [YED # 569] (phonetically, the comparison is dubious because of the deletion of the initial consonant in Kott; S. Starostin suggests the possibility of dissimilation), then the Kott compound verb may literally be interpreted as 'to-hunt-pierce'. Reconstruction shape: The word is attested only in Ket-Yugh, so the word-initial zero could just as well have been *x-.

Werner 2002: I, 108; Werner 1993: 24. Neuter gender. Plural form: bˈat-pulʸ-aŋ {батпуляӈ}. The second part of this compound form is clearly buˑlʸ 'foot' q.v. (reflecting the archaic nature of this compound, since buˑlʸ means 'foot' rather than 'leg' in Modern Ket). The first part is equated by Werner with baˑt 'face / forehead' [Werner 2002: I, 112], which is semantically plausible. However, a separate word baʔt is also attested in the meaning 'joint' (and 'knee' as well) [Werner 2002: I, 108], and it makes more sense to directly interpret 'knee' as 'joint-(of)-leg' rather than 'face-(of)-leg' if there is such a possibility. Quoted as batpulʸ₅, pl. batpulʸ-ǝŋ₅ ~ batpulʸ-ǝŋ₆ in [Werner 1977: 138]; as batpel ~ baːtpil ~ batl, pl. batpel-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 189].

Werner 2011: 195. Neuter gender. Plural form: bˈat-pɨl-ɨŋ ~ bˈat-pul-ɨŋ. Quoted as batpɨl₅, pl. batpɨl-ɨŋ₆ in [Werner 1977: 138]. See notes on Ket for the word's internal structure.

Castrén 1858: 197. Genitive: arše-i, plural form: arša-n. The root morpheme seems to be the same as in araŋ ~ araŋ-an 'limb, joint' [ibid.]. Cf. in older sources: arši (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 321].

Werner 2002: I, 109. Attested only in (Kh.). Segmentation as pat-as is justified through comparison with karam-pat 'elbow' (Kh.) [ibid.].

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 206. Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for Kott; not attested in Pumpokol. Replacements: Replaced in Kott with arša, an etymologically obscure form. S. Starostin segments it as ar-ša (probably following the alternate variant aranšaːn) and compares it with Kott araŋ 'joint, limb' < Proto-Yeniseian 'bone' q.v. However, the origins and nature of the component -ša/n/ still remain unclear under such a scenario; the link with araŋ consequently remains without a firm basis. Reconstruction shape: All correspondences are regular and trivial. Semantics and structure: The root *baʔt per se must have had the general meaning 'joint' in Proto-Yeniseian (it is still preserved as such in Ket; see notes on Ket). In Ket-Yugh, the more precise meaning 'knee' was represented by a compound (*baʔt-pul); in Arin, pat-as is a suffixal formation whose second morpheme is not quite clear, but cf. also karam-pat 'elbow'. This does not, however, technically prevent us from setting up *baʔt as the main bearer of the meaning 'knee' as well for Proto-Yeniseian.

Werner 2002: I, 384; Werner 1993: 50. Infinitive. The paradigm is a composite verb in which the stem it- occupies the slot of "modifier", cf. iˈt-p-ɛ-d-am 'I know', ˈit-ku-m 'you know', it-a-lʸam 'he knows', it-lʸam (< *it-i-lʸam) 'she knows', etc. (the second "kernel" stem alternates between -(a)m and -lʸam). The 1st p. sg. form is quoted in [Castrén 1858: 74] as iet=pɛ-d-ɛm.

Werner 2011: 342. No infinitive form. The paradigm is structured the same way as in Ket, although the second verbal root is different (-e rather than Ket -am): 1sg. ˈit-p-a-d-e 'I know (it)', past tense it-p-ɔʰː-r-d-e, 2sg. it-p-a-g-e 'you know (it)', past tense it-p-ɔʰː-r-g-e, etc. The 1st p. sg. form is quoted in [Castrén 1858: 74] as iet=pɛ-d-e.

Castrén 1858: 196. Transcribed as ̃aːliga, i.e. with prenasalization, which is really just a pronunciation variant of ŋ=aːliga, where ŋ= is the subject prefix of the 1st p. pr. The exact shape of the root is unclear, since no other forms are attested in the paradigm.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not reconstructible. Ket-Yugh *ʔit- is probably the best candidate, but even in Ket-Yugh the complex structure of this verb is not thoroughly understood, and it has no external parallels. Kott ŋ=aːliga, structured more like a nominal than a verbal formation, is even more obscure. For the moment, we prefer to leave the slot empty.

Werner 2002: II, 416; Werner 1993: 126. Neuter gender. Plural form: ɜː-ŋ {ъъӈ}. Quoted as ɜː₃, pl. ɜː-ŋ₃ in [Werner 1977: 172]; as ɜaf ~ ɜaŋ, pl. ɜaf-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161] (Yugh form?).

Werner 2011: 83. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɜf-ɨŋ. Quoted as ɜʰːp₄, pl. ɜf-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 172].

Castrén 1858: 221. Plural form: dʸip-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: dˈib-aŋ (M., Dict., Kl.), ib-an (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 328] (all forms are plural).

Dulzon 1961: 171 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as ip-in in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 416]. Both transcriptions clearly represent the plural form ('leaves').

Dulzon 1961: 171 (Dict.). Attested in the idiomatic form xˈogon=dˈɨp-un, where xogon = 'trees' q.v. Final -(u)n is unquestionably a plural suffix. The form ef-ig (Pal., Kl.), listed as another Pumpokol equivalent for 'leaves' [ibid.], must actually represent Yugh.

S. Starostin 1995: 232. Alternately reconstructed as *dʸʌʔǝpʰǝ ~ *ʔʌʔǝpʰǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 416]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular, although reconstruction of *-e as the final vowel is questionable.

Werner 2002: II, 360-361; Werner 1993: 94. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. A suppletive verb: singular person forms are derived from the stem -qot, plural forms follow the stem -dam-in. Use of the preverb t= is also obligatory. Cf. specific forms: dˈi=t=a=ʁot 'I lie / sleep', past tense (t)=t=ˈɔ=l=lot (< *d=t=ɔ=l=qot); di=t=a=rʸˈam-in 'we lie / sleep', past tense (t)=t=ˈɔ=l=dam-in.

Werner 2011: 211. As in Ket, a suppletive verb, where singular person forms are derived from the stem -χɔt, plural forms follow the stem -dam-ɨn. Cf. 1sg: di=t=ˈa=χɔt ~ dˈi=tt=a=χɔt 'I am lying', past tense di=t=ˈɔˑ=r=ɔt (< *di=t=ɔ=r=χɔt), 3pl. dˈu=tt=a=dˈam-ɨn 'they are lying', past tense d=i=t=ˈɔˑ=r=dˈam-ɨn. Another verb formed with the same root is d=isk=ˈa=χɔt 'I am lying' [Werner 2011: 211]; semantics are not quite clear, but the main morpheme is the same in any case.

Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Past tense: a=l=aːt-aŋ, imperative: a=l=at. Different from the dynamic verb i=teːn-aŋ 'to lie down' [Castrén 1858: 201].

Not attested.

Dulzon 1961: 171 (Pal.). Very dubious (glossed as 'to lie down' and not attested in any other sources).

S. Starostin 1995: 183 (*ʔaq-ɔt-, with probably incorrect segmentation). Alternately reconstructed as *qot in [Werner 2002: II, 360-361]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Kott; in Arin definitely preserved in the meaning 'sleep' q.v., but not attested in the meaning 'lie'; unclear situation in Pumpokol. Replacements: Pumpokol ak is an unclear form without any obvious parallels. Reconstruction shape: Ket-Yugh *=qot and Kott =aːt- are compatible if we also take into consideration the archaic attestations in older sources on Kott/Assan: Kott dʸ=a=gat 'I sleep' (M., Dict., Kl.), Assan y=a=hat-an 'I sleep' (M., Dict., Kl.). (See below on the polysemy 'lie / sleep'). These forms show that the Kott form was originally *dʸ=a=gat-aŋ, which allows to reconstruct Proto-Yeniseian *=qɔt. The irregular dropping of -g- in Castrén-era Kott may, perhaps, be due to analogy with the non-present tense forms, where the consonant was dropped in a cluster: *a=l=qat-aŋ > a=l=at-aŋ, etc. Semantics and structure: The verb *=qɔt was most likely polysemous in Proto-Yeniseian, meaning both 'to lie' and 'to sleep'. The paradigm must have been suppletive, since Ket-Yugh *=dam- in plural forms corresponds to Kott =tam- in such forms as dʸ=a=tam-an-toŋ 'we lie / we sleep', etc.; the opposition "*=qɔt /sg./ : *=dam- /pl./" is thus safely reconstructible, although Kott shows no signs of the directional prefix t=, obligatory in Ket-Yugh.

Werner 2002: II, 190; Werner 1993: 86. Neuter gender. Plural form: sʸˈeŋ-anʸ {сеӈан ~ сеӈын}. Quoted as sʸeˑŋ₁, pl. sʸeŋ-ǝn₅ in [Werner 1977: 175]; as seŋ ~ sieŋ, pl. seːŋ-en ~ seɛŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 186].

Werner 2011: 208. Neuter gender. Plural form: sɛŋ-ɨn. Quoted as seŋ₁, pl. sɛŋ-ɨn₅ in [Werner 1977: 175].

Castrén 1858: 214. Plural form: šičil-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: šišil (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 347].

Werner 2002: II, 438. Attested only in (Kh.).

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 272. Distribution: Preserved only in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: Kott šičil and Arin sal are most likely related, although phonetically, the Kott word is closer to Arin šišali (Kh.) 'lungs', which, in turn, triggers comparison with the phonetically similar, but not well-corresponding Kott form šičaːtn 'lungs' [Werner 2002: II, 438]. Relations between all these words remain obscure. If Kott šičaːtn is an old fossilized plural (< *šičal-n; the consonantal gradation is regular, cf. iːpal, pl. iːpat-n 'asp tree'), then the difference between 'lungs' and 'liver' in Kott rests on differing models of paradigmatic behaviour, but the word is essentially the same, and its original meaning must have been generic ('internal organ'?) - this is further confirmed by the fact that Arin šišali was glossed as 'lungs', not 'liver'. As for Arin sal, S. Starostin suggests (dialectal?) reduction from *sisal; in this particular case, such a development seems less likely than a transcriptional error. Ultimately, it seems that we are dealing with Kott-Arin *sisal 'internal organ', a form with no transparent internal etymology and vague semantics. In this context, Ket-Yugh *seŋ is a more reliable candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'liver', although somewhat weakened by lack of parallels in Kott-Arin.

Werner 2002: II, 323; Werner 1993: 108. The suffix -sʸ marks the predicative form. Quoted as attrib. ugde₅, pl. ugdoŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 186]; as uːgdi in [Castrén 1858: 164].

Werner 2011: 204. Plural form: ˈugde-ŋ. Quoted as ugde₅, pl. ugdoŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 186].

Castrén 1858: 202.

Werner 2002: II, 323. Attested only in (Kh.) as an adverbial form.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 201. Alternately reconstructed as *ug/ǝ/ ~ *ug-dǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 323]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, but not attested in Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the word-medial consonant (or cluster) is problematic. If Ket-Yugh *ʔugde < *ʔug-de, where *-de is a fossilized suffix, it is comparable with Kott uy as a potential reflex of Proto-Yeniseian *ʔux-; the Arin adverbial form uta, in this case, also has to be analyzed as u-ta < *ʔux-ta. On the other hand, H. Werner reasonably suggests that original *ʔugd- is also a possibility: Arin uta may be a reflexation of *ʔugda (cf. Arin kute 'autumn' = Ket qɔgdi id. < Proto-Yeniseian *χogdi [S. Starostin 1995: 302]). But then we would probably expect Kott *uri or *ure instead of uy (cf. Kott hoːri 'autumn'). So, in the end, we prefer to regard the Ket-Yugh cluster here as the result of contraction with a former suffix, and agree with the reconstruction of a single velar consonant in word-medial position.

Werner 2002: II, 415; Werner 1993: 126. Masculine gender. Plural form: ˈɜɣ-enʸ {ъгень}. Quoted as ɜːɣǝ₄ (N.-Imb.) / ɜɣ₄ (S.-Imb.), pl. ɜɣ-enʸ₅ in [Werner 1977: 172]; as ɜag, pl. ɜag-en in [Castrén 1858: 161].

Werner 2011: 207. Masculine gender. Plural form: ˈɜg-ɨn. Quoted as ɜʰːk₄, pl. ɜg-ɨn₅ in [Werner 1977: 172].

Castrén 1858: 200. Plural form: ik-ˈan.

Werner 2002: II, 164. Attested only in (Kh.); similarity with Koibal sirgä 'nit' (M. Castrén) hints at a borrowed origin for this word in Arin (not to mention the possibility of incorrect semantic glossing).

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 192. Alternately reconstructed as *(dʸ)ʌʔǝgǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 415] (initial dʸ- is suggested based on an additional comparison with Kott dʸoga 'nit', which is an entirely different lexical root). Distribution: Preserved in both of the primary Yeniseian branches (including Ket-Yugh and Kott). Replacements: In Arin, the word was probably either replaced with a borrowing, or not attested at all (if the only attested source really confused it with 'nit'). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Lack of Arin parallels means that either *ʔ- or *x- were present in the word-initial position.

Werner 2002: I, 320. Masculine gender. Plural form: hiɣ-ˈenʸ ~ hɔʔ-nʸ {хоʼнь}. Quoted as hiˑɣ₁ (S.-Imb.) / hiˑɣǝ₁ (N.-Imb.), pl. hɔʔ-nʸ₂ ~ hiˑɣ-enʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 190]; as hiːgi ~ hiːgie, pl. hiːgi-n in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 216. Masculine gender. Plural form: fˈig-ɨn. Quoted as fiˑk₁, pl. fig-ɨn₁ in [Werner 1977: 190]; as fiːg, pl. fiːg-en in [Castrén 1858: 191].

Castrén 1858: 225. Genitive: fiː-a, plural form: fa-n. Also attested in the meaning 'man' (= 'male person') as part of the compound form: fiː-hit, where hit = 'person' q.v. Cf. in older sources: pˈiyal (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 334] (final -al is not clear).

Not attested properly. Cf. panalikip 'man' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 52], where the initial pa- could, with some effort, be etymologically related to Ket-Yugh *piˑke, etc.; however, the overall structure of this compound remains quite confusing, and the correctness of the semantics 'man' (= 'male human being') may be put under doubt.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 249. Alternately reconstructed as *p^higǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 320]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages where attested, but not found in Pumpokol, and dubious in Arin. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular; according to S. Starostin, the correspondence "Ket-Yugh *-k- : Kott -0-" reflects Proto-Yeniseian *-x-. This solution may yet be amended in the future, but the presence of a back consonant in word-medial position is unquestionable.

Werner 2002: II, 42; Werner 1993: 82. Quoted as ɔʔnʸ₂ ~ ɔːnɛ₄ (N.-Imb.) / ɔnʸ₄ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 172]; as oan-sʸ / oan-di in [Castrén 1858: 163]. Castrén glosses the word with polysemy: 'many / seven', but more recent sources distinguish between the two: thus, in [Werner 2002: II, 42, 48] 'seven' is ɔʔn (glottal stop + tone 2), whereas 'many' is ɔ̂nʸ (tone 4). This does not, however, exclude an old morphophonological connection between the two words. It is to be noted that 'seven' is the highest simple cardinal number in Ket (except for '10'), and, thus, its association with 'many' would be quite understandable. Cf. also bɜäyäm ~ bɜyäm 'many' in [Castrén 1858: 189].

Werner 2011: 324. Quoted as ɔʰːn₄ in [Werner 1977: 172]; as in Ket, distinct from ɔʔn 'seven' [Werner 2011: 280].

Castrén 1858: 221.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 209. Alternately reconstructed as *bɜyeŋ in [Werner 2002: I, 153]. Distribution: Preserved in Kott, but possibly still active in its original meaning in mid-XIXth century Ket as well. Replacements: Attestation of Ket bɜäyäm 'many' in Castrén's records, clearly related to Kott payaŋ, shows that the modern Ket descendant of this proto-item, bɜyaŋ 'enough' [Werner 2002: I, 153], may have undergone a semantic shift {'many' > 'enough'}, whereas Ket-Yugh *ɔʰːn 'many' may have been a specific case of generalization of a high numeral {'seven' > 'many'}, provided that the words for 'seven' and 'many' are indeed etymologically related. That said, it is also not excluded that Castrén's 'many' is a semantically inaccurate glossing; that the Ket words for 'many' and 'seven' are only accidentally similar; and that, consequently, Proto-Yeniseian *bǝy- = 'enough', whereas Proto-Yeniseian (=Ket-Yugh) *ɔːn = 'many'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket-Yugh and Kott are regular.

Werner 2002: I, 396; Werner 1993: 49. Feminine gender. Polysemy: 'meat / fish'. Quoted as iˑsʸ₁ 'fish / meat' in [Werner 1977: 151], but only as isʸ 'fish' in [Castrén 1858: 162]. For the meaning 'meat', the latter source yields the word kitʸ ~ kiːt [Castrén 1858: 167]; but this seems to be a somewhat more specialized hunting term, since Werner ([Werner 2002: I, 436; Werner 1993: 54]) lists it as kiˑt {кит} 'body / (animal) flesh' (Russian 'туша', German 'Fleisch ausgeweidetes Tier').

Werner 2011: 136. Feminine gender. Polysemy: 'meat / fish'. Quoted as iˑsʸ₁ 'fish / meat' in [Werner 1977: 151]. Concerning kitʸ 'animal flesh' [Werner 2011: 136], the same notes apply here as in the case of Ket.

Castrén 1858: 201. Plural form: iːč-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: ič (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), iči (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 335].

Dulzon 1961: 173 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as iži in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 396].

Dulzon 1961: 173 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 194. Alternately reconstructed as *hitǝ ~ *itǝ > *ičǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 396] (the reconstruction is almost certainly incorrect, since Pumpokol hite ~ gite 'fish' q.v. cannot be related to these forms). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for Pumpokol. Replacements: In Pumpokol, replaced with cič = Kott šig 'food' < Proto-Yeniseian *siː-k 'food', a nominal derivative from *siː- 'to eat' q.v. The phonetic development from Proto-Yeniseian to Pumpokol is perfectly regular, and the semantic shift {'food' > 'meat'} is typologically normal. This seems a better etymological decision than S. Starostin's earlier comparisons of Pumpokol cič with either Ket tiɣ 'snake, fish' q.v., or with Ket kiːt 'flesh; animal body' [YED # 397], both of which suffer from phonetic problems, e. g. Proto-Yeniseian *k- is not supposed to be palatalized in Pumpokol, etc. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: The polysemy 'meat / fish' in Ket-Yugh is most likely a secondary innovation, tied in with the semantic shift 'snake' > 'fish' in the same languages (see under 'fish').

Werner 2002: II, 90. Masculine gender. Plural form: qiːn. Polysemy: 'moon / month'. Distinguished from the homonymous word qiˑp 'grandfather' with a different plural form: qˈib-aŋ [Werner 2002: II, 90], although this difference is not reflected in [Werner 1993: 65], where the plural for both words is listed as {қибаӈ}. It is, however, reflected in [Werner 1977: 161], cf.: qiˑp₁ 'moon / grandfather', but qiː-nʸ₃ 'moons / months' vs. qib-aŋ5 ~ qib-eŋ 'grandfathers'. In [Castrén 1858: 170], only the singular form is listed as qiːp ~ qip for both 'moon' and 'grandfather'.

Werner 2011: 220. Masculine gender. Plural form: χˈeif-ɨn ~ χˈeb-eːŋ. Polysemy: 'moon / month'. Quoted as χep₁, pl. χeif-ɨŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 161]. Cf. the word for 'grandfather': χep ~ χip, pl. χeb-eːŋ [Werner 2011: 161]. As in Ket, the distinction between the plural forms of 'moon' and 'grandfather' is a serious argument in favor of homonymy rather than polysemy, with subsequent contamination (it can be seen that in Yugh the original plural form of 'moon' had been at least partially displaced by the plural of 'grandfather').

Castrén 1858: 214. Plural form: šuːy-aŋ. Polysemy: 'moon / yellow'.

Dulzon 1961: 171 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Transcribed as išuy in Strahlenberg's records. Cf. išuy 'month' (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 442].

Dulzon 1961: 171 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The synonymous form xep (Pal., Kl.) is probably not Pumpokol, but Yugh.

S. Starostin 1995: 204 (*/ʔV/suy). Alternately reconstructed as *tuy / *suy in [Werner 2002: II, 442]. Distribution: Preserved in Kott-Arin and Pumpokol, but replaced in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: In Ket-Yugh, replaced with *qip 'moon', of unclear origin; the most tempting solution would be to identify it with *qib 'grandfather', but the idea runs into significant phonetic problems (see notes on Ket-Yugh) - unless one can come up with a satisfactory solution for the irregular devoicing of the final consonant in the word for 'moon'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular. Arin ešuy 'moon' may be easily explained as a contracted variant of *ʔes-suy 'sky-moon', so there is no need to set up an irregularly syncopated *ʔV- in the reconstruction.

Werner 2002: II, 78; Werner 1993: 62. Neuter gender. Plural form: qˈaŋnʸeŋ ~ qˈaŋnʸiŋ {қаӈнеӈ}. Quoted as qaʔy₂, pl. qaŋnʸeŋ₅ 'mountain covered with wood' in [Werner 1977: 159]. Close synonym: lʸɨʔt {лыʼт ~ лъʼть}, pl. lʸɨk-ŋ {лыкӈ ~ лыккень} ([Werner 2002: II, 17; Werner 1993: 78]); quoted as lɨʔt₂ ~ lʸɨʔt₂, pl. lʸɨkken₅ / lʸɨkŋ₅ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 169]. The meaning of this word is glossed as 'ridge covered with wood' ('mit Wald bedecktes Plateau'; 'плато, поросшее лесом') in [Werner 2002] and [Werner 1993] (also as '(heavily) wooded area' and 'hills covered with wood' in the latter source). Scarce attestations in texts do not permit to sort out the semantic difference very well; however, qaʔy still seems to be the more basic word in the singulative meaning 'mountain, hill', given that a very large number of compound formations are derived from it, e. g. qˈay-tat 'mountain top', qˈay-dɨnʸt 'foot of the mountain' etc. [Werner 2002: II, 63].

    It is interesting that M. Castrén lists neither of these forms in the meaning 'mountain'. The first word is found in his records as qai 'steep bank' ('steiles Ufer') [Castrén 1858: 169]. The second is not found at all. As for the meaning 'mountain', according to Castrén, it is expressed by the same word as 'stone' q.v. - highly improbable, since no other source confirms this semantics.

Werner 2011: 87. Neuter gender. Plural form: χˈaŋ-nʸiŋ. Quoted as χaʔy₂, pl. χaŋnʸeŋ₅ 'mountain covered with wood' in [Werner 1977: 159]. Close synonym: lɨʔtʸ₂, pl. lɨk-ŋ [Werner 2011: 87], quoted as lɨʔtʸ₂, pl. lɨk-ŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 169]. For possible semantic differentiation see notes on Ket.

Castrén 1858: 221. Plural form: dʸiː-an. Cf. another phonetically close item, also glossed as 'mountain': dʸix, pl. dʸek-ŋ ~ dʸig-an [Castrén 1858: 221]. It is tempting to explain the difference between dʸiː and dʸix as dialectal variation, but it seems to be unprecedented. Cf. in older sources: ǯii (M., Dict.), ǯiy (Pal.), pača-ii (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 300] (the latter form is idiomatic; the first stem is pača 'big' q.v.).

Dulzon 1961: 163 (M., Dict., Pal.).

Dulzon 1961: 163 (Dict., Pal.). The form is clearly plural, and comparison with Ket-Yugh *qaŋniŋ shows that final -nnoŋ is probably to be segmented out as not belonging to the root. The pseudo-synonymous form xay (Pal.) [ibid.] is most likely Yugh rather than Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 267. Alternately reconstructed as the composite form *ʎɨk-ǝtʸ in [Werner 2002: II, 17]. Distribution: Preserved in Kott and, with slightly modified semantics, in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: The situation with Proto-Yeniseian 'mountain' is quite complex. Ket-Yugh *qaʔy 'mountain; steep bank' corresponds to Kott xey ~ kʰey 'back side of axe / knife'; the same root is most likely present in Kott xeː-leːx ~ kʰeː-leːg 'back side of mountain' [Castrén 1858: 207]. The semantic development 'mountain' > 'side of axe / knife' is suspicious; a more likely common invariant would be 'elevation', 'protruding part', etc., implying that the primary semantics of 'mountain' for this root on the Proto-Yeniseian level is not likely. In Ket-Yugh, the word was probably originally applied to 'cliffs' or 'steep riverbanks', then extended to denote 'wood-covered mountains' as well. The same may be true in the case of Pumpokol, if the plural form ko-nnoŋ is indeed the default equivalent for 'mountain(s)' in that language; if so, the 'mountainization' of *qaʔy should be pushed back to the Ket-Yugh-Pumpokol level. But the original word for 'wood-covered mountain' (the default kind of mountain for Yeniseian territory) must have been *rʸɨʔǯ. (Arin kar 'mountain' is isolated in Yeniseian and has no etymological connections whatsoever).

   Reconstruction shape: Ket-Yugh *lʸɨʔč and Kott dʸiː correspond well to each other, reflecting Proto-Yeniseian *rʸɨʔǯ. Certain problems arise due to a variant with the final velar: Kott dʸix 'mountain', possibly connected with -leːx in xeː-leːx 'back side of mountain', cf. also the -k in such plural forms as Ket lʸɨkken, etc. The nature of the relation between the variants *rʸɨʔǯ and *rʸɨʔk is unclear: the final consonants could be two different suffixes, or one might somehow be a historical allomorph of the other (but H. Werner's treatment of *rʸɨʔǯ as a compound formation is unwarranted), but separating them as two different roots is simply impossible.

Werner 2002: II, 126; Werner 1993: 70. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɔʔ-n {қоʼн}. Quoted as qoˑ₁, pl. qɔʔ-n₂ in [Werner 1977: 161]; as quː, pl. qo-an ~ quːg-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170].

Werner 2011: 221. Neuter gender. Plural form: χɔʔ-n. Quoted as χo₁, pl. χɔʔ-n₂ in [Werner 1977: 161].

Castrén 1858: 211. Plural form: hoːp-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: hobii (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), xobuy (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 360].

Dulzon 1961: 180 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as bü=kʸˈon in (Pal.). The component bʸu= ~ bü= is most likely the 1st p. possessive prefix 'my' (labial vowel instead of -i-, as in bi=kʸal '(my) son', etc., may be due to assimilation with the labial vowel of the root); cf. the simple variant qon 'mouth' in Strahlenberg's notes [ibid.], as well as o=kun with a different prefix ('his mouth'?) in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 126]. Polysemy: 'mouth / face' in (Dict.).

Dulzon 1961: 180 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Polysemy: 'mouth / face'.

S. Starostin 1995: 302 (*χowe). Alternately reconstructed as *qo in [Werner 2002: II, 126]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. S. Starostin separates the Arin and Pumpokol forms into a different root, comparing them with Ket qɔŋ 'form, shape' and reconstructing Proto-Yeniseian *qɔŋ ([YED # 433]; in the earlier source [S. Starostin 1995: 244] the Arin/Pumpokol forms are not compared with Ket, but are still separated from *χowe). This is dubious for both semantic ('form, shape' and 'face, mouth' are quite distinct meanings) and phonetic reasons (Ket -ŋ does not normally correspond to both Arin and Pumpokol -n). On the other hand, both Arin =qo-n and Pumpokol qa-n are perfectly explicable as the results of fusion of the plural suffix *-n (cf. Ket-Yugh) with the old root; this is noted in Werner's dictionary and represents the more economic and understandable solution. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular. The intervocalic *-w- in S. Starostin's reconstruction is meant to account for -p- in Kott hopi, inexplicable otherwise. Semantics and structure: The polysemy 'mouth / face', observed in Arin and Pumpokol, may be archaic (although there are other candidates for expressing the meaning 'face' in Proto-Yeniseian as well).

Werner 2002: I, 392. Neuter gender. Plural form: ɛʔ-ŋ {эʼӈ}. Quoted as iˑ₁, pl. ɛʔ-ŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 150]; as iː, pl. eɛŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161] (apparently, Castrén thought that iˑ 'sun' q.v. and iˑ 'name' were the same polysemous word, and listed the same plural form for both, which is clearly erroneous in the light of all other data sources).

Werner 2011: 225. Neuter gender. Plural form: ɛʔ-ŋ. Quoted as i₁, pl. ɛʔ-ŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 150].

Castrén 1858: 200. Plural form: iːk-ŋ ~ ek-ŋ ~ eäk-ŋ.

Not attested.

Dulzon 1961: 168 (Dict.). It must be noted that the form coincides with the Yugh equivalent and could very well be Yugh rather than Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 193. Alternately reconstructed as *ʔigǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 392]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, although not attested in Arin (the Pumpokol form could also, in theory, be Yugh rather than Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are fully regular, with root-final *-ɢ reconstructed based on its complete disappearance in Ket-Yugh but preservation in Kott.