Werner 2002: I, 159; Werner 1993: 30. Quoted as bɨldǝ5 in [Werner 1977: 142]; as bɨldʸɛ in [Castrén 1858: 190]. Not segmentable on the synchronic level, although Werner reasonably suggests that -da is an old suffix in Ket.
Werner 2011: 60. Quoted as bɨlʸːa5 in [Werner 1977: 142]. Derived by H. Werner from earlier *bˈɨlʸdʸa.
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Most likely, from proto-KY *bɨʎ-, tightly fused with the collective suffix *-da [S. Starostin 1995: 211].
Kott:bar ~ baːr-1
Castrén 1858: 223. A rather transparent borrowing from a Turkic source (cf. Yakut bar, etc. < Common Turkic *baːr 'all'). Distinct from uːtam 'all = whole, totus' (German ganz), with the same root as in 'full' q.v.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*bɨʎ- #
S. Starostin 1995: 211. Alternately transcribed as *bəʎ- in [Werner 2002: I, 159]. Distribution: Not very reliable, since the form is properly reconstructible only on the Ket-Yugh level. The Kott form is a transparent borrowing from Turkic, and the Arin and Pumpokol equivalents are not attested. However, there is no internal explanation for the root on the Ket-Yugh level, either, so it could easily be archaic.
Werner 2002: II, 98, 101; Werner 1993: 67. Neuter gender. Quoted as qɔlʸǝn6 ~ qɔllǝn6 in [Werner 1977: 163]; as qolen in [Castrén 1858: 170]. Final -Vn may be a fossilized (collective) plural suffix.
Werner 2011: 69. Quoted as xont, pl. xont-en-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 172].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Since the forms are in complementary distribution, the proto-KY equivalent is not easily reconstructible. The Ket word looks like a possible plural form from the root *qɔl-, not attested independently. The Yugh form may be etymologically related to the verb χɔt ~ χɔtn 'to burn' q.v. if the underlying structure is something like *χɔtn-tɨ (with cluster simplification); but the status and meaning of the second component would remain unclear (a rare derivational suffix?).
S. Starostin 1995: 263 (*qorVn- / ~ χ-, -ɔ-, -l-). Distribution: The three attested forms (in Ket, Yugh, and Kott) are all etymologically different. The Kott word for 'ashes' (fenaŋ) corresponds to words with the meaning 'sand' q.v. in all other Yeniseian languages, and its meaning, according to the majority rule, should be acknowledged as secondary ('sand' > 'ashes'). The Yugh form is not particularly transparent, but has a certain chance of secondary formation from the verb 'to burn' (see notes on Ket-Yugh). Only Ket qɔlɨn lacks any internal etymologization, and may therefore be tentatively regarded as the optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'ashes' at the moment. Reconstruction shape: Since the Ket form is isolated, there are multiple variants for the corresponding Proto-Yeniseian protoform: *qol- /*qɔl- /*qor- /*qɔr- (since Ket, among other things, does not distinguish between Proto-Yeniseian *-l- and *-r-). The final -n is not segmentable on the Ket level, but from a historical perspective it is most likely some sort of fossilized suffix.
Werner 2002: II, 433; Werner 1993: 131. Feminine gender. Quoted as ɨːn3 in [Werner 1977: 195]; as ɨːgen in [Castrén 1858: 163] (reflecting the archaic bisyllabic stem with an intervocalic uvular). The latter source also has another phonetically similar, but etymologically different word in the same meaning of 'tree bark': iːŋ, pl. iːgen [Castrén 1858: 162], not confirmed in more modern sources.
Werner 2002: II, 433. Quoted as ɨːn3 in [Werner 1977: 195]. For some reason, not found in [Werner 2011].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔɨɢɨn 'bark' [S. Starostin 1995: 196]. The original root may have been *ʔɨɢ-; cf. a possible early derivative - Ket ɨːt3, Yugh ɨːtʸ3, XVIIIth century Ket ɨggut 'k. of birchbark vessel' [Werner 2002: II, 434], from proto-KY *ʔɨɢ-ɨǯ [S. Starostin 2005: No. 123] (neither in this reconstruction nor in H. Werner's variant *ɨgətʸ is there a mention of a possible connection between the two, but the bisyllabic structure hints at possible fossilized suffixation).
Castrén 1858: 225. Plural form: farpak-an ~ farpag-an ~ farpak-ŋ. Clearly a compound, in which the second element could be ax 'trees, wood' q.v., but the first root has no known individual semantics.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*ʔɨɢ- [*xɨɢ-] #
S. Starostin 1995: 196 (*ʔɨɢɨn /~ x-,-ʔ-,-χ-/). Distribution: The situation is somewhat difficult. Ket-Yugh *ʔɨɢ- 'bark' (for the isolation of this root from the complex stem *ʔɨɢɨn see notes on Common Ket-Yugh) is opposed to the Kott form farpax, which is also clearly a polymorphemic formation, where only -ax ('trees, wood') is reliably segmentable. S. Starostin [YED # 997] compares Kott farpax with the Ket form hɔ̂lʸ 'outer side; face', reconstructing Proto-Yeniseian *pɔːr with the same meaning. This is a possible etymology (correspondences are regular and the semantic matching is close), but does not account for -p- in Kott. One would have to assume, then, that Kott farpax < *far-ap + *ax 'outer side of trees', where -ap is the same suffix as in Kott fat-ap 'palm of hand', pul-ap 'sole of foot', i. e. denoting (among other things) the external parts or surface of the object, whereas in Ket the word is preserved without this suffix. There are some obvious problems with this explanation, but on the whole, it does constitute a strong case for the secondary origin of the word 'bark' in Kott. This leaves Ket-Yugh *ʔɨɢ- as the sole uncontested candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'bark', lost in Kott and not attested in either Arin or Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Since the word is only attested in Ket-Yugh, there are multiple possibilities for the reconstruction of either of the two consonants; most importantly, initial *ʔ- could just as well have been *x-.
Werner 2002: I, 348; Werner 1993: 124. Neuter gender. Plural form: hɜ̂y {хъй}. Quoted as hɨˑy1, pl. hɜːyi4 (Kur.) / hɜːyǝ4 ~ hɜyǝ4 (Bak., Sur.) / hɜy4 (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 193]; as hɨː, pl. hɨːy-aŋ ~ hɨɛy-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].
Werner 2011: 83. Plural form: fɜʰːy. Quoted as fɨy1, pl. fɜʰːy4 in [Werner 1977: 193]; as fɨː, pl. fɨy-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *pɨy, pl. *pǝːy 'belly'. Vowel gradation must have arisen regularly out of an old contraction: *pɨy-ɨŋ > *pǝːy (cf. an almost identical situation, with vowel lowering, in the word for 'tongue' q.v.). Older data by Castrén either show the old non-contracted variant, or possibly, a local analogical restructuring (it may be suspected that some of Castrén's "too regular" plurals could have been artificial formations). Etymological connection with 'heart' q.v., argued for in [S. Starostin 1995: 251], is not obvious.
The proper equivalent for Proto-Yeniseian 'belly' (= 'external part of the body') is not reconstructible based on available data.
The strongest etymology ties together Proto-Ket-Yugh *pɨy 'belly' and Kott fui ~ pʰui 'the inside (of smth.)' [Castrén 1858: 226] < Proto-Yeniseian *pɨy. However, considering that the Ket-Yugh word also shows additional semantics that is close to the Kott meaning (e. g. may be used to form the postposition 'in, inside'), there is no clear argument here that the original meaning was 'belly' or polysemous ('/external/ belly; internal parts, inside').
Kott tʰaloːx (tulok, tolok in alternate sources) is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 290] with Proto-Yeniseian *tuːʎ- 'thin intestine' (> Ket tuːlʸi, Yugh tuːʰlʸ, Kott tʰutuːli with suggested reduplication). If the comparison is correct, then tʰaloːx is a derived form with a not particularly clear nominal suffix ('intestine-holder'?), although the vocalization -a- in Castrén's notation remains unclear. If it is incorrect, then the Kott word for 'belly' has no etymology and a CVCVC structure that still hints at the possibility of a derived (secondary) origin.
Arin pʸʰorga is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 250] with Ket-Yugh *pɨʔɨʎ 'intestine' (more precisely, 'thick intestine' as opposed to *tuːʎ- 'thin intestine'). The strange correspondence "-rg- : -ʎ-" seems reasonable, given additional examples (most notably, Kott tʰempul 'root' = Arin tʸeːmbirga-ŋ id. q.v.): the old transcription -rg- may, in fact, represent some specific manner of articulation of the palatal -rʸ-. However, if the etymology is correct, Arin 'belly' is once again analyzable as some sort of 'intestine-holder'.
Finally, Pumpokol kaŋ 'intestines, belly' is compared in [YED # 404] (but not in the corresponding printed entry in [S. Starostin 1995: 239]) with Ket-Yugh *kɨʔŋ 'belch (n.)', which is extremely dubious and seemingly unprecedented from the point of view of semantic typology. (Additionally, it is not even all that clear if kaŋ was indeed the primary equivalent for 'belly (external)' in Pumpokol).
All things considered, we prefer to refrain from filling in this particular slot, although the root *pɨy should probably be at least remembered for the purposes of further external comparison.
Werner 2002: II, 58. Plural form: qä̂-ŋ {қяң ~ қең}. Quoted as qɛʔ2 (N.-Imb.) / qä4 (S.-Imb.), pl. qeːŋ1 ~ qäŋ4 in [Werner 1977: 160]; as qeɛ in [Castrén 1858: 170].
Werner 2011: 160. Plural form: χe-ŋ. Quoted as χɛʔ2 ~ χɛʰː4, pl. χe-ŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 160].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *qeʔ, pl. *qe-ŋ 'big' (with regular vowel lowering due to the glottal stop). Both languages also show a dialectal variant with an original long vowel (*qeː).
Dulzon 1961: 158 (Dict.). Quoted as xäese in (Kl.); as xeːm ~ xʸaese in (Pal.).
Proto-Yeniseian:*qeʔ
S. Starostin 1995: 300 (*χ[e]ʔ). Alternately reconstructed as *qɛʔ in [Werner 2002: II, 58]. Distribution: In its original form and meaning, the word is well preserved in Ket-Yugh, as well as Pumpokol (where xäː-se = Ket qɛ:-sʸi 'big; chief' /substantivized form/ [Werner 2002: II, 73]). It seems to be absent as such in Kott and Arin. However, it is also preserved as a fossilized component in several additional complex nominal stems, such as *qe-b 'grandfather' (< *qeʔ + *ʔab 'father'), *qe-ma 'grandmother' (< *qeʔ + *ʔama 'mother'), both of which do have explicit reflexes in Kott (hiːpa, hiːma) and Arin (=kib, =kima) [S. Starostin 1995: 300]. It may, therefore, be quite safely assumed that Ket-Yugh here preserves the original situation. Replacements: (a) Kott fačaː is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 245] with Pumpokol barčoy 'high' < Proto-Yeniseian *pa(r)sa (?) 'big', but the etymology is very weak, since the consonantal correspondences are irregular, so the word could just as well be considered an isolate with no suggested origins; (b) Arin birka is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 213] with Ket bɔʔlʸ 'thick' < PY *bVʔʎ-; the word-medial consonantal correspondence would be the same as in the Arin word for 'belly' q.v., but the vocalism is again irregular. In any case, even if the etymology is correct, it would probably surmise the development 'thick' > 'big' (gen.) in Arin, judging by the situation in general. Reconstruction shape: Since we prefer not to distinguish between S. Starostin's Proto-Yeniseian *q and *χ, we reinterpret his reconstruction of *χeʔ as *qeʔ (more in line with H. Werner's reconstruction).
Werner 2002: I, 422; Werner 1993: 52. Masculine gender. Plural form: kˈe-ŋ-asʸːenʸ. Literally analyzed as 'wings-animal'. Another synonymous form from the same root is keˑŋ-sʸ, pl. keˑŋ-sʸ-in [Werner 2002: I, 423].
A close quasi-synonym is duˑm, pl. dum-n ~ num-n, but its meaning is always glossed as 'small bird', 'youngling': 'kleiner Vogel', 'Vögelchen' [Werner 2002: I, 211], duˑm1 'птичка' [Werner 1977: 147], dum 'Vöglein, Sperling' [Castrén 1858: 185]. The item is, therefore, less eligible for the wordlist, even if, as a simple root stem, it is obviously more archaic than the recent compound form in Ket.
Werner 2011: 326. Literally analyzed as 'wing-animal' (< kˈɛy-at 'wing' + atčɛʰːr 'animal'). The quasi-synonymous form dɨl-tɨm [Werner 2011: 326], consisting of dɨl 'child; little' and *tɨm 'bird', is used to denote the meaning 'small bird'.
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
It is quite possible that the common generic term for 'bird' in Proto-KY was a compound formation from the words for 'wing' and 'animal (gen.); deer'. However, it should be noted that in the modern languages the first component of the compound differs morphologically: Ket ke-ŋ is a regular plural from the singular form kɛʔy 'wing', whereas Yugh kˈɛy-at is a singular form (but a compound itself: < *kɛʔy 'wing' + *ʔaʔt 'bone'). This means either a morphological restructuring of the still transparent compound in either Ket or Yugh (or both), or that the two forms were created independently of each other.
In the light of the second hypothesis, it is necessary to pay closer attention to the parallel between Ket duˑm and Yugh dɨl-tɨm < Proto-KY *dum (with vocalic assimilation in Yugh: *dɨl-tum > dɨl-tɨm). In both of these languages the word is attested in the narrow meaning 'little bird; nestling', but this may have been a recent innovation (cf. particularly the fact that in Yugh the root is only encountered in a compound with dɨl 'child'). External data (Kott) strongly suggest that *dum was the original Ket-Yugh equivalent for 'bird' as such; the "reinvention" of the concept as 'winged animal' must have occurred under areal influence (e. g. from Uralic languages).
Castrén 1858: 197. Plural form: al=tˈuːma-n. Questionable, since the meaning is given as 'little bird, youngling' ('Vöglein'), but no alternate Kott equivalent is known for the more generic meaning of 'bird'. The component al=, based on comparative evidence, may be safely analyzed as a fossilized prefix with an unknown meaning (see 'dog', etc.).
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*duma
S. Starostin 1995: 225. Distribution: The word is found in both Ket-Yugh and Kott and is clearly of Proto-Yeniseian provenance, but see further notes on semantics. Replacements: In Ket-Yugh, replaced either on the proto-level or on the levels of independent dialects by an idiomatic formation: 'bird' < 'winged-animal'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are fairly regular and straightforward. In Kott, the word is only attested in conjunction with the old fossilized prefix al=, whose original function remains unclear (see 'dog', 'star', etc., for further examples). Semantics: In all the attested variants, the reflexes of Proto-Yeniseian *duma have always been glossed as either 'small bird' or 'youngling; chick'. This means that it should be primarily reconstructible in this particular meaning; however, there is no separate term for 'bird (gen.)' or 'large bird' that could be reconstructed in opposition to *duma '(small) bird', which leaves the latter as the only generic term in the entire field to be projected onto a higher level.
Werner 2002: II, 3; Werner 1993: 76. Composite verb, formed with the frequent compound verb formative -aq. Cf. individual forms: da=lˈap-t-aq 'she bites', past tense da=lˈap-t-ɔ-n-ɔq; da=lˈab-ba-t-aq 'she bites me', past tense da=lˈab-ba-t-ɔ-n-ɔq. In [Werner 1977: 168], quoted only for the Yugh dialect, but, as seen from other sources, clearly present in Ket proper as well. Quoted as laptokŋ, past tense laptanokŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].
Potential synonyms include: (a) ˈarɔŋ 'to bite' [Werner 2002: I, 58] = {ароң} in [Werner 1993: 18], glossed as 'to bite /of dog/'; the fact that the only derivative from this word is ˈarɔŋ-sʸ 'prone to bite /of dog/' confirms that the word is primarily applicable to dogs, rather than the required human act; (b) hˈɨlʸdaŋ [Werner 2002: I, 343], glossed with polysemy: 'to bite / to chew', and only in the meaning 'to chew', as {хъльдаң ~ хыльдаң}, in [Werner 1993: 123]; primary semantics here, judging by the statistical frequency of examples and general presentation in sources, is 'to chew' rather than 'to bite'.
Werner 2011: 85. Infinitive form. The finite verbal paradigm is formed in several different ways. The most archaic variant, parallel to the one in Ket, is probably a compound formation with č=aqŋ ~ č=aχuŋ: di=lˈap-č-a-qŋ ~ di=lˈap-č-a-χuŋ 'I bite', past tense di=lˈap-č-ɔ-n-uŋ. Other variants are derived from the infinitive and include: di=lˈappɨŋ-ˈa-getʸ 'I bite', di=lˈappiŋ-χ-ˈa-y-itʸ 'I bite him', etc. [Werner 2011: 86].
Potential synonyms include: (a) ˈayiŋ-aχ (d=ˈayiŋ-aχ-ˈa-getʸ 'he bites'), parallel to Ket ˈarɔŋ and possibly also with the primary meaning 'to bite /of dog/'; (b) fɨl-dʸ-a (di=fɨl-dʸ-a-y-a 'I bite him'), a verb whose primary meaning might be 'chew' rather than 'bite' [Werner 2011: 190]).
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
The most common Ket-Yugh equivalent for the verb to 'bite' is a compound expression whose main lexical morpheme is Proto-KY *laʔp 'piece' (> Yugh laʔp, pl. lˈaf-ɨŋ [Werner 2011: 295]). This may suggest that the original verbal root 'to bite' is the one that seems to be exclusively restricted to 'animal biting' in modern languages: Ket ˈarɔŋ vs. Yugh ˈayiŋ-aχ (regular phonological reconstruction is difficult here, since the correspondence "Ket -r- : Yugh -y-" is very sporadic and probably reflects a rare cluster or the results of irregular contamination).
Kott:
Not attested.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:
Not reconstructible due to insufficient attestation (and the main Ket-Yugh equivalent is quite obviously of recent secondary origin as well).
Werner 2002: II, 295; Werner 1993: 103. Plural form: tˈum-aŋsʸ-in. The non-predicative form is simply tuˑm (e. g. tuˑm dɨˑlʸ 'black child'). Quoted as tuˑm1 in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tum ~ tuom in [Castrén 1858: 178].
Dulzon 1961: 188 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Predicative form ('it is black').
Proto-Yeniseian:*tum-
S. Starostin 1995: 289. Alternatively reconstructed as *tʰum in [Werner 2002: II, 296]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular and trivial.
Werner 2002: II, 219. Attested only in Khelimskiy's records.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*sur
S. Starostin 1995: 278. Alternately reconstructed as *suʎ in [Werner 2002: II, 219]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are completely regular. Semantics: The same root also served (already on the Proto-Yeniseian level) as the main derivational stem for the word 'red' q.v.
Werner 2002: I, 86; Werner 1993: 20. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈarʸ-eŋ {ареӈ}. Quoted as aʔt2, pl. arʸeŋ5 (Imb.), adeŋ5 (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 136]; as at, pl. aːdeŋ in [Castrén 1858: 158].
Werner 2011: 195. Plural form: ˈad-iŋ ~ ˈad-ɨŋ. Quoted as aʔt2, pl. ad-ɨŋ5 in [Werner 1977: 136].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔaʔd [S. Starostin 1995: 178]; in the light of the plural form *ʔaʔde-ŋ, the singular form reconstruction should arguably be expanded to *ʔaʔde (in CVC-type structures, root-final *t is usually assimilated to the velar nasal of the plural suffix -ŋ, as in Ket diːt 'woodcock', pl. dɛk-ŋ, etc.).
S. Starostin 1995: 178. Alternately reconstructed as *aʔt in [Werner 2002: I, 86]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh; not attested in Arin and Pumpokol. In Kott, the etymological parallel is ar-aŋ ~ ar-aŋ-an 'joint; limb', which may be analyzed as a former collective plural form ('limb' = '(a set of) bones'). This implies the semantic shift {'bone' > 'limb'} and, most likely, the archaicity of the Ket-Yugh semantics. Replacements: Kott xagal has no known parallels in other Yeniseian languages; its CVCVC structure is slightly suspicious, but there are no known potential sources of borrowing. Reconstruction shape: Since there are no parallels in Arin, the word-initial position could be represented by either *ʔ- or *x-.
Werner 2011: 101. Neuter gender. Plural form: tˈɜga-n ~ tɜgˈaː-n. Quoted as tɜga5, pl. tɜgǝn5 ~ tɜ3gǝːn in [Werner 1977: 183]. Quite distinct from maʔm 'female breast' [Werner 2011: 101].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *tǝga, pl. *tǝga-n 'chest (male)' [S. Starostin 1995: 284]; distinct from Proto-KY *maʔm 'breast (female)' [S. Starostin 1995: 284], an expressive form with a rare instance of initial *m-, generally prohibited in Yeniseian.
Castrén 1858: 224. Plural form: fa-yikŋ. This is the only word with the meaning 'breast' ('Brust') attested in Castrén's data. Cf. in older sources: pfa (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 302]. Entirely different word, however, quoted in (Kh.): xanti [ibid.].
Dulzon 1961: 163 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as apien (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: I, 348]. Final -aŋ (-en) seems to be detachable as a plural (plurale tantum?) suffix.
S. Starostin 1995: 284. Alternately reconstructed as *tʰǝga in [Werner 2002: II, 300]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and in Pumpokol. Replacements: The Ket-Yugh / Pumpokol item is distinctly opposed to the Kott-Arin isogloss, reconstructible with difficulty (Kott pa and Arin pʰi- are hard to reconcile; perhaps the vowel fluctuation is due to different ways of contraction of an earlier cluster, e. g. < *paxV or *pixV). Which of the two should be considered the primary candidate for Proto-Yeniseian '(male) breast', remains uncertain. We choose the Ket-Yugh / Pumpokol isogloss as the default candidate only because (a) it poses fewer phonetic difficulties as far as the phonetic shape of the reconstruction is concerned and (b) there is a vague chance that the Kott / Arin forms may in some way be related to the Proto-Yeniseian word for 'heart' q.v. and, perhaps, be historically derived from it (although no transparent scenario may be suggested at the present time).
Werner 2002: I, 209; Werner 1993: 36. The infinitive is not attested; known paradigmatic forms are dˈi-v-rʸut 'I burn it / I light it', past tense d-b-ˈi-lʸ-dut 'I burned it / I lit it' [ibid.]. The same stem is also present in the composite verb duːd...bet 'to fish at night (with lit lights)', literally 'to-lighting-make' [Werner 2002: I, 210].
A complicated case, as there are synonyms: (a) the composite verb inɔ-q... da with the same polysemy 'to light / to burn': d=ˈinɔ-q-a-v-rʸa 'I light/burn it', past tense d-inɔ-q-ɔ-v-i-lʸ-da [Werner 2002: I, 366]; the infinitive form is inɔ-ʁat ~ inɔ-ʁɔt; (b) in [Castrén 1858: 168], the verb 'to light (fire)' is rendered as kot-a-bit ~ kot-a-biːtʸ, which is probably a mistranscription for *qɔt-a-bet = Ket qˈɔt-a-vet 'to heat (the oven)', infinitive qˈɔtɛt ~ qˈɔt-qǝt 'to put wood on the fire'. Considering the external parallels of this stem in Yugh (as well as its basic meaning 'fire' in Kott), it is quite likely that *qɔt is the original Ket verb denoting 'burning' in the transitive sense. However, its current basic meaning seems to have narrowed down to a peripheral sphere ('put wood on the fire').
Werner 2011: 315. An infinitive form. The finite forms of the verb usually feature this root as the first lexical stem within a compound formation, e. g.: di=χˈɔt-a-b-diʔ 'I burn it', past tense di=χˈɔt-ɔ-b-ɨ-r-diʔ, or di=χˈɔt-i-y-itʸ 'he burns her', past tense di=χɔt-dʸitʸ-nʸ-e, etc.
An additional synonym is an expressive, probably more recent formation: (a) bˈɔk-d-iriŋ 'to burn' [Werner 2011: 316], lit. 'fire-gen.-to eat', e. g. da=bˈɔg-d-iriŋ-aː-b-diʔ 'she burns it'.
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *qɔʔt 'to burn'. In Ket, this verb has been preserved in the compound formation dˈaq-qɔt 'to roast' [Werner 2002: I, 175], where dˈaq- is the original root for 'roast' (cf. the infinitive daq-ŋ 'to roast'). In Yugh, χɔt may also mean 'to roast', but only as an additional meaning to the general semantics of 'burn'. Ket =dut, on the other hand, is comparable with Yugh dʸuːtʸ ~ dʸoutʸ 'to light up (water, during night fishing)' [Werner 2002: I, 224]; it is perceivable as the result of a trivial semantic shift ('to light' > 'to burn').
Castrén 1858: 215. 1st person sg.; the stem consists of the verbal prefix č= and the root =augan-. The simple stem, without the verbal prefix, is attested with a different meaning: augan-aŋ 'I am cooking' [Castrén 1858: 195]. A less certain candidate is the composite expression hat akfaːtekŋ, glossed as 'to burn; to set fire (to)' [Castrén 1858: 195, 234]. Since the expression consists of hat 'fire' q.v. + akfaːtekŋ 'to set, establish', it is much more likely that it refers to the inchoative situation of lighting a fire rather than to 'burning down smth.'. Cf. in older sources: atakpodɨ 'I burn' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 311] = hat akfaːt-.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*qɔʔt
S. Starostin 1995: 304 (*χɔt 'to burn; fire'). Alternately reconstructed as *qoʔt ~ *qʌʔt 'fire; to burn' in [Werner 2002: I, 305]. Distribution: In the Kott-Arin branch, this word is preserved only as a nominal stem ('fire'), where it has wiped out the original root for 'fire' (*boʔk q.v.), although the exact situation in Arin is actually unknown (no equivalent for the verb 'to burn' attested in that branch). Replacements: (a) In Ket, the old verb seems to have become specialized {'to burn /smth./' > 'to roast; to put wood on the fire'} and replaced by =dut {'to light / fire/' > 'to burn /smth./'}; (b) In Kott, provided Castrén's semantic glossing is accurate, the old verbal stem is replaced by a combination of the old verbal root *ʔǝqan 'to boil' (= 'to cook') [S. Starostin 1995: 191] with a preverbal directional morpheme.
Werner 2002: I, 367; Werner 1993: 47. Neuter gender. Plural form: iˑnʸ-eŋ {инеӈ}. Polysemy: 'claw / nail'. Quoted as inʸ4 / iːnʸi4 (Kur.) / iːnʸǝ4 ~ inʸǝ4 (Sur.), pl. iˑnʸ-eŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 151]; as iːn, pl. iːn-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 162].
Werner 2011: 223. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈinʸ-iŋ. Polysemy: 'claw / nail'. Quoted as iʰːnʸ4, pl. inʸ-iŋ1 in [Werner 1977: 151].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *ʔiːnʸ- [S. Starostin 1995: 195]. This reconstruction should probably be amended to *ʔiːnʸe, pl. *ʔiːnʸe-ŋ, based on the full vowel -e- in the Ket plural form, assimilated to -i- in Yugh.
S. Starostin 1995: 195 (*ʔiːɲ-). Alternately reconstructed as *iʔǝnǝ ~ *iʔǝɲǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 364, 367]. Distribution: Preserved only in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: In Kott, merged with halčiːg 'hoof' = Ket qɔlʸesʸ, Arin kalɨs 'hoof' < Proto-Yeniseian *χɔlVčiɢ [S. Starostin 1995: 304]. Since there are no internal etymologies or areal explanations for Ket-Yugh *ʔiːɲe as an innovation, the most economic solution is to assume this secondary semantic merger in Kott {'hoof' > 'finger-nail'}. Reconstruction shape: Lack of Arin parallels means that the word-initial position, instead of the glottal stop, could have been occupied by the weak velar fricative *x-.
Werner 2002: I, 71; Werner 1993: 20. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈasʸpulʸ-aŋ {асьпуляң}. Quoted as asʸpulʸ5 ~ asʸpulʸ6, pl. asʸpulʸ-ǝŋ5 in [Werner 1977: 135]; as aːsfɜl, pl. asfɨlʸ in [Castrén 1858: 159] (although phonetically the form is Yugh).
Secondary synonym: ˈɛsʸqay {есқай} 'cloud, cloudy' [Werner 2002: I, 248]; Werner 1993: 44]. Quoted as eːsxai, pl. eːsxaŋnaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 160]. A compound form, literally: 'sky' + 'mountain' q.v.; clearly a more recent formation than ˈasʸpulʸ, and not confirmed textually as a proper "basic" candidate for the slot.
Dulzon 1961: 175 (M.). Final -aŋ is obviously the plural marker.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:*ʔas=pur
S. Starostin 1995: 255 (*ʔas, *ʔas-pVr). Alternately reconstructed as *es-pʰǝʎ in [Werner 2002: I, 71]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (although not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Vocalic reconstruction is highly approximate, since correspondences show irregularities both in the first and second syllables. Structure-wise, the word is clearly a compound, in which the first part is the Proto-Yeniseian word for 'sky': Ket eˑsʸ, Yugh es, Kott eːš, Arin es, Pumpokol eč < Proto-Yeniseian *ʔes [S. Starostin 1995: 188]. The protolanguage variant here, however, must have been *ʔas- rather than *ʔes-, with a somewhat obscure, but recurrent, model of vowel gradation; in Arin, original *as-per probably changed to es-per through later analogy with simple es (Werner's reconstruction of both 'sky' and 'cloud' with root vowel e is less satisfactory than Starostin's in this respect). The second component is not encountered on its own, but it may be the same as -par in Kott tiː-par 'fog' [Werner 2002: II, 265], i. e. the original word denoting all forms of cloudy condensation. The root vowel is tentatively identified as *u based on the Ket form, since it is the hardest one to explain as secondary: Kott and Arin vowels duplicate the vocalism of the first syllable, and Yugh ɨ represents the same development as in the word for 'knee' q.v.
Werner 2002: II, 250; Werner 1993: 95. Quoted as taʔy2 in [Werner 1977: 179]; as tai in [Castrén 1858: 175]. Polysemy: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.) / frost' (only glossed as 'frost' in [Werner 1977] and [Werner 1993]).
Castrén 1858: 215. Plural form (the word functions both as noun and adjective): čˈal-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: čˈol-tu (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), čal-tu (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 386] (-tu is the 3rd p. predicative suffix).
Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). A synonymous form, recorded for Pumpokol, is tayem (Dict., Kl.); however, it is highly suspicious that this is in reality a Ket-Yugh form rather than proper Pumpokol.
Proto-Yeniseian:
It is currently impossible to determine the optimal candidate for the meaning 'cold' in Proto-Yeniseian, since at least two choices have the exact same probability: Ket-Yugh *taʔy [S. Starostin 1995: 280] and Kott-Arin *ǯVr1- [S. Starostin 1995: 311] (the vocalism in the case of the latter is hard to recover due to morphological vowel gradation in the attested forms). Neither of the two forms finds any etymological parallels in the other branch, nor do they have any internal etymologies or identifiable sources of borrowing. According to S. Starostin, Ket-Yugh *taʔy has generally more reliable and semantically close parallels on the Sino-Caucasian level, but we currently prefer not to use this macrofamily-level connection as an argument, and leave the position open.
Number:16
Word:come
Ket:ˈi-g-besʸ {игбесь}1
Werner 202: I, 351; Werner 1993: 45. Infinitive form; the word is a highly non-trivial composite verb consisting of the 1st stem ("modifier") i, the preverb k (phonetically g) and the "nuclear" stem besʸ. That k (g) is formally a preverb and not part of the 1st root is proven by the paradigm: d=ˈi-k-sʸ-i-besʸ 'I (will) come' vs. d=i-bˈɔ-k-sʸ-i-vesʸ 'he brings me with him', literally 'he-with-me-comes' (in the latter form the preverb -k- is separated from the root -i- with the 1st p. indirect object marker -bɔ-). On the other hand, the latter form is also attested in the dialectal variant d=ig-bˈɔ-k-sʸ-i-vesʸ. If this is not the result of analogical contamination with the infinitive, it might mean that the 1st root is, after all, *-ik-. As for the morpheme besʸ, it is encountered, albeit very rarely, in other Ket stems as well, cf. bɔlʸ-besʸ 'to become thick' [Werner 2002: I, 122], meaning that, as is usually the case with biradical verbs, it is probably *-i- (*-ik-) that carries the main original directional semantics of 'coming'.
Quoted as igbisʸ6 / iɣvisʸ6 (S.-Imb.) 'to bring' in [Werner 1977: 150]; as di=ek-s-i-bɛs in [Castrén 1858: 181]. The latter source adds an extra synonym: d=a=d=dʸi [Castrén 1858: 180], but in most modern sources this verb is usually explicated with the slightly different meaning 'to reach', 'to arrive' (e. g. in [Werner 1993: 32]: d=a=d=diy {даддий} 'I will reach, arrive' = Russian 'дойду, приду').
Yugh:ˈi-g-bes1
Werner 2011: 197. Infinitive form. See notes on the corresponding Ket entry for morphological analysis. Quoted as igbes6 'to bring' in [Werner 1977: 150]. The quasi-synonymous form =dʸi [Werner 2011: 196] rather means 'to reach, arrive at (one's final destination)' than 'to come'.
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *i(-)k-bes 'to come'; the complex verbal paradigm is structured in the same way in both Ket and Yugh.
Castrén 1858: 201. 1st p. sg. Cf. also past tense: ha=itoːy-aŋ, imperative: o=ta.
Arin:
Not attested.
Pumpokol:
Not attested.
Proto-Yeniseian:
The Proto-Yeniseian form is not reconstructible, since the Ket-Yugh and Kott forms lack mutual etymologization; furthermore, the basic verb 'to come' in Ket is a composite verb, which makes its archaic nature quite dubious, and the morphophonology of the verbal root in Kott remains to be explored in more detail.
Werner 2002: II, 114, 124; Werner 1993: 69. Paradigm: 1st sg. dˈi=y=ʁɔ ~ dˈi=y=ɔ=ʁɔ 'I (will) die', past tense d=ˈiˑ=n=ɔ (< d=ˈiˑ=n=ɔ=ʁo). The adduced infinitive is a complex bimorphemic formation; the simple infinitive form qɔː {қоо} ([Werner 2002: II, 124; Werner 1993: 66]) is glossed as 'kill' rather than 'die', but this semantic gloss is actually quite dubious (see notes on 'kill'). Nevertheless, only the morpheme *qɔː, in different allomorphic variants, participates in the general verbal paradigm. Quoted as qɔ-rʸeŋ5 / qɔ-deŋ5 (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 162]; as present tense di=ey=o, past tense diː=n=o in [Castrén 1858: 181].
Werner 2011: 291. Paradigm: 1st sg. diˑ=y=ɔ (< *diˑ=y=χɔ) 'I (will) die', past tense diˑ=n=ɔ (< *diˑ=n=χɔ). A more complex variant of the same verb is attested as infinitive χˈɔ-dɨŋ 'to die', 1 sg. di=χˈɔ-dɨŋ-ˈa-getʸ 'I (will) die' [Werner 2011: 291]; the infinitive is also quoted as χɔ-deŋ5 in [Werner 1977: 162].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *qɔː or *qɔ-deŋ 'to die' (the addition of the suffixal component reduces vowel length).
Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. the past tense: o=n=xa-y-aŋ, imperative: a=n=xa. Cf. also the substantival stem: xa ~ qa, pl. xa-yik-ŋ 'death' [Castrén 1858: 206]. Cf. in older sources: ˈo=n=xa 'dead (person)' [Verner 1990: 332] (basically a verbal form, 3rd p. past tense: 'he died').
Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Kl.). The root is attested as part of the form ˈin-qo 'dead (person)'; cf. also in=ko-to (Kh.) 'death' [Werner 2002: II, 124]. Technically speaking, none of these forms prove that *=qo was the default root forming the basic verb 'to die' in Arin, but no alternatives are available, and external data confirm the Proto-Yeniseian status of the item anyway.
Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict.). Only attested as part of the form kˈa-doŋ-du "he is dead", where -du is the 3rd p. m. suffix, but the component -doŋ- remains grammatically and etymologically obscure. Dubious.
Proto-Yeniseian:*qɔ
S. Starostin 1995: 264 (*qɔ-). Alternately reconstructed as *qoɢǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 123]; in [S. Starostin 1995: 264], the reconstruction *qoːɢV is reserved for the closely similar item with the meaning 'to hunt' (Ket qɔː, Yugh χoː) - probably a near-homonymous, but etymologically different entry, although H. Werner conflates the two (unjustly, since the necessary intermediate meaning 'to kill' is not attested in Ket-Yugh). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The vocalism *ɔ is based on S. Starostin's correspondence of "Ket-Yugh *ɔ ~ *o : Kott a".
Werner 2002: II, 269; Werner 1993: 99. Masculine gender. Plural form: taʔp {таʼп}. Quoted as tiˑp1, pl. taʔp2 in [Werner 1977: 181]; as tip ~ tiːp in [Castrén 1858: 177].
Castrén 1858: 196. Plural form (with vowel gradation): al=šap. The word contains the same fossilized prefix as 'bird' q.v. Cf. in older sources: ˈal=šip (M., Dict., Kl.), al=šib (F.) [Verner 1990: 369].
Dulzon 1961: 182 (Kl.). Also attested as ci in (Kl., Dict.); it is not clear if this is the same word as čɨp, nor is it entirely clear that čɨp itself is not, in fact, a Yugh form.
Proto-Yeniseian:*čip
S. Starostin 1995: 217. Alternately reconstructed as *tʸip in [Werner 2002: II, 269]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, slightly disturbed by two factors: (a) a vowel gradation scheme between sg. and pl. forms - the Proto-Yeniseian paradigm was probably the same as Ket-Yugh, i. e. sg. *čip, pl. *čaʔp), but the vocalism of the plural variant may have become generalized in Arin; (b) the Kott-Arin forms are attested in conjunction with a desemanticized prefix (Kott al=, Arin il=, original vocalism unclear) that is also encountered in several other entries on the 100-word list ('bird', 'star'); this seems to have been a shared Kott-Arin innovation.
Werner 2002: II, 321, 337; Werner 1993: 110, 112. Quoted as urˈɔ (Imb.) / udˈɔ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 186]. Composite infinitive form, in which the first component = ulʸ 'water' q.v. Of the two variants, the first one is more archaic, since it fuses together the final consonant of the first stem with the initial consonant of the second one (*xur1-dɔ- > urɔ-); the second variant more likely represents the "reinstated" stem, based on regularized analogy with the word 'water'.
Since the Yugh equivalent of this form shows final -p (u=dɔp ~ ur=dɔp), it is reasonable to suppose irregular elimination of -p in Ket proper as well, possibly triggered by analogy with various complex verbal forms in which -p is lost for samdhi reasons (e. g. ulʸdɔ-ba=ɣ=a=ʁan "I begin to get drunk"), or with the plural forms of the simple paradigm in which -p- is regularly lost in the intervocalic position. The paradigm in question is: d=ˈa=b=dop 'I drink it', past tense d=ˈɔ=g=dɔp ~ d=ˈɔ=m=dɔp [Werner 2002: I, 200]. Loss of final -p in the infinitive form also explains why the infinitive form is used in conjunction with ulʸ 'water': to avoid homonymy with other verbal roots of the same form. However, the conjugated complex verb ul...dɔp 'to drink (water)' also exists per se, and is attested as early as in [Castrén 1858: 184]: d=ul=e=dap 'I drink', past tense d=ul=e=g=dap.
An even more complicated question is the relation between the Ket stems =dɔ(p) and =ɔp, also 'drink', as in: d=a=b=ɔp 'I drink it', past tense d=ɔ=b=a=l=ɔp [Werner 2002: II, 44]. The semantic difference between d=a=b=dop and d=a=b=ɔp is unclear; it can only be seen from available texts that the latter form is much more rare, possibly archaic in origin. Whether they are connected etymologically is quite debatable; to link them together, one would have to demonstrate that -d- in d=a=b=dop is an old preverb, fused with the root. But apparently, this is impossible to do on available Ket material, since even the external parallels in Kott show that the two stems must have been differentiated already on the Proto-Yeniseian level (there is, however, some evidence for such segmentation in Yugh, see notes on the Yugh entry). In any case, at the moment it seems that =ɔp has to be excluded from lexicostatistical calculations.
Werner 2011: 306. Infinitive form; another variant of the infinitive is the complex formation u=dˈop ~ u=dˈof (< *ur-dop, literally 'water-drink'; the form ur=dop itself is also attested, but is likely to be a back-formation through analogy, cf. the same situation in Ket). Quoted as u=dˈɔp in [Werner 1977: 186]. Both infinitives correspond to the same finite paradigm: 1 sg. d=aʰː=b=dop 'I drink it', past tense d=ɔ=b=ɨ=y=op, imperative a=y=ɔp 'drink it!'. There is also a composite paradigm: 1 sg. d=ˈur=a=dop 'I drink', where =ur= is 'water'; quoted as d=ur=e=daf, past tense d=ur=e=g=daf in [Castrén 1858: 185]. It is notable that in all these paradigms, the root has the form =dop in the present tense, but =op in the past tense and in the imperative mood. This suppletivism cannot be explained through regular Yugh morphophonology.
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *dɔp 'to drink'. The fluctuation between the variants =dɔp ~ =dop and =ɔp ~ =op may be reliably projected onto the Proto-KY level as well. There are three possibilities to explain it: (a) original suppletivism of two unconnected roots (*=dɔp in the present tense and infinitive, *=ɔp in the past tense and imperative); (b) original suppletivism of the simple root *=ɔp and its extended variant *=d=ɔp, containing a fossilized prefix; (c) fracturing of the original paradigm due to a rare preterital marker, i. e. *d=a=b=dop 'I drink it' vs. *d=o=b=i=Y=dop > *d=o=b=i=y=op 'I drank it', where *=Y= is a phonetically not quite clear grammatical morpheme (it is also encountered in several other paradigms as well, always manifested as =y=). All three scenarios also surmise later analogical processes in Ket, with formation of new paradigmatic variants, which would hardly be surprising. External comparison with Kott would seem to support scenario (a), but not in a conclusive manner.
Castrén 1858: 202, 213. 1st p. sg. Cf. also past tense: o=l=aː=p-aŋ, imperative: a=l=č=ep, infinitive: ši=g=ap. The root is either =p- or =ap, with the vowel sometimes deleted through contraction with preceding prefixes. Cf. in older sources: opaŋ (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 348].
Dulzon 1961: 177 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Morphologically obscure; most likely, a complex stem with an adverbial prefix, but proper segmentation seems impossible.
Dulzon 1961: 177 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Morphologically obscure; as in Arin, probably a complex stem is involved, but segmentation is unclear. The form du-ž-dop 'to drink', listed in (Pal.) and (Kl.) as a synonym, is most likely a corrupt transcription of Yugh (not proper Pumpokol) d=ur=a=dop q.v.
Proto-Yeniseian:*=op
S. Starostin 1995: 202 (*ʔVbV); superseded by the newer reconstruction *ʔop- in [YED # 173]. Also reconstructed as *op in [Werner 2002: II, 44]. Distribution: Best attested in Kott, as well as in a part of the Ket-Yugh paradigm. Replacements: (a) The forms in Arin and Pumpokol, as is common for most verbal forms attested in these languages, are very hard to interpret. S. Starostin [1995: 203] suggested that they are cognate, segmenting the Arin form as tʸ=aːgu-r, comparing the "root" to /h/ok- in Pumpokol and reconstructing a rather vague stem *ʔVKV- 'to drink'. This reconstruction, however, depends on way too many unprovable assumptions, not to mention that any Arin or Pumpokol forms attested in XVIIth century sources without reliable external cognates in Ket or Kott are highly questionable to begin with. Provisionally, we treat them as independent replacements with obscure etymologies; (b) In Ket-Yugh, the old root *=op has been confined to certain suppletive parts of the paradigm, being generally replaced by =dop. This latter stem is compared by S. Starostin to Kott toːp- in toːp-aːk-ŋ 'I eat', etc. < Proto-Yeniseian *dop 'to eat' [S. Starostin 1995: 223]. If this comparison is right, the Ket-Yugh meanings are probably innovative, appearing through frequent usage of the compound stem *xur1-dop, literally 'to consume water', where *dop would be a verb with originally vague semantics ('to consume, devour'?). Another possibility is that Ket-Yugh *=dop (and maybe Kott toːp- as well?) are historically fusions of the same old root *=op with a directional prefix; however, it remains unprovable. Overall, the entire situation is beset with etymological problems, so the selection of *=op as an optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'to drink' rests only on its position as the currently strongest isogloss between Ket-Yugh and a non-Ket-Yugh language (Kott) in the required meaning. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket-Yugh and Kott are regular and trivial.
Werner 2002: II, 277, 283. Final -sʸ is a predicative suffix. Quoted as toˑyiŋ1 / tɔ5ʁɔiŋ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 181]; as toɢayeŋ in [Castrén 1858: 177]. This stem forms numerous derived composite verbs with the meaning 'to dry': tɔʁɔyiŋ-diy, tɔʁɔyiŋ-ɢat, etc. [Werner 2002: II, 277]. The quasi-synonymous form qˈolʸaŋ(-sʸ) 'dry' [Werner 2002: II, 99] has very limited usage, predominantly in the meaning 'withered' (of trees or grass), so it is not eligible for inclusion.
Werner 2011: 306. Quoted as tɔχˈɔkŋ ~ tɔχˈaiŋ in [Werner 1977: 181] (tɔχˈɔkŋ may be a misprint). As in Ket, this complex adjectival / infinitive stem serves as the basis for verbs with the meaning 'to dry', e. g. tɔχɔyiŋ-etʸ [Werner 2011: 306].
Common Ket-Yugh notes:
Proto-KY *tɔ=qɔy-iŋ 'dry' (adj.). The prefixal character of *tɔ= can be seen without resorting to external comparison: cf. the common Ket-Yugh compound verbal stem tut... ʁɔy 'to get dry': Ket tˈut-a-b-a-ʁɔy 'it is drying', Yugh tˈut-a-b-a-χɔy id. [Werner 2002: II, 291], although the original meaning of the first stem *tut= is unclear. As for *t= in *tɔ=qɔy-iŋ (< *t=a=qɔy-iŋ?), it is most likely a fossilized verbal prefix (infinitive forms in Ket-Yugh sometimes incorporate these morphemes).
Castrén 1858: 213. The prefix ši= indicates that the form is really an infinitive, but the verb 'to dry' in Kott has only been preserved as compound formations: šiː=gal-ai-č-e-jaːk-ŋ 'to dry out (intr.)', dʸ=ä=šiː=gal-aŋ 'to dry (tr.)', etc. The older sources usually cite a different word in the meaning 'dry': xuiga (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 375].
Dulzon 1961: 185 (Dict.). The status of the prefixal component ič= is unclear; if the form is really predicative ('it is dry'), it could be a sequence of auxiliary verbal morphemes (conjugation markers).
Proto-Yeniseian:*qɔy- [*qɔɢ-]
S. Starostin 1995: 265 (*qV[ɢ]i-). Alternately reconstructed as *qoy ~ *qoyiŋ in [Werner 2002: II, 283]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for the Kott dialect described by M. Castrén. Replacements: In Kott, the old word for 'dry' (as in 'dry clothes', etc.) may have merged with the old word for 'dry, withered' (as in 'dry tree', etc.): Kott =gal- = Ket qɔlʸ- in qɔlʸ-iŋ oˑksʸ 'dry tree', etc. [Werner 2002: II, 101]. This is hard to ascertain due to the possibility of inaccurate semantic glossing in known sources on Kott, but may still be regarded as the optimal scenario under the present circumstances. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Word-medial *-ɢ-, tentatively suggested by S. Starostin, is not very likely in this root (although the only form that explicitly contradicts such a reconstruction is Kott xui-ga), but its probability becomes higher if we decide to establish a further etymological link with Proto-Yeniseian *qɔq-ante 'hunger' [S. Starostin 1995: 265]; the derivation 'dry' > 'hunger' is typologically possible, e. g. encountered in Burushaski.
Build tree