Kottish:īči, pl. īčaŋ; асс. ič (М., Сл., Срсл., Кл., Ф.), iči (Кл.) "meat"; койб. (Ф.) is id.
Arin:is (М., Сл., Срсл., Кл.), iži (Лоск.) "meat"
Comments:ССЕ 194. Werner 1, 396 <*hitǝ / *itǝ > *ičǝ> (??). The reconstruction of *-t- cannot be justified, and the reconstruction of *h- here is based only on the Pump. form hite, gite 'fish' - which is no doubt a reflex of PY *c[ī]k 'fish' q.v.
Comments:ССЕ 194. Werner 1, 16 (Yug aχat : Kott. agat, without a reconstruction); 1, 386 (identifyingKet. ittɔ́ : Yug. it-tou without a reconstruction; on p. 395 he suggests deriving these forms from the same root as *ʔiǯVŋ 'writing, ornament' - which can hardly be supported because Yug has a very pronounced -tt-, not -t́t́- in ittou).
Comments:ССЕ 194. Werner 1, 396 (without reconstruction and mentioning Bouda and Timonina, deriving the Yen. forms from PT *jɨd - not excluded, but rather improbable phonetically).
Comments:ССЕ 195. Werner 1, 395 *id'ǝŋ (also faultily connecting *ʔit- 'hack, notch' q.v.). Werner (1, 260) separates Kott. eaŋōx and traces it back to PY *ʔeŋ- 'scratch' q.v. (with a reconstruction *eʔŋ-ǝq / *eʔŋ-ǝk); however, the development *-ǯ- > Kott. -j- (-0-) is quite regular, and the similarity of Kottish forms meaning 'scratch, dig' and 'write' appears to be secondary, due to phonetic convergence.
Comments:ССЕ 195. Pump. (Срсл.) biś "curse" is probably a Yug form; this allows us to regard d- and b- as prefixed elements (quite common in Yenisseian verb) and reconstruct *ʔīs-. Werner (1, 191) prefers to regard biś as a writing error instead of *diś [I would add - a rather bizarre writing error, never encountered elsewhere] and to reconstruct <*d'ɨʔǝsǝ>.
Ket:ɨ:t, pl. ɨ̄reŋ1 (Bak., Sur. ɨ̄dǝŋ1), (Kl.) ɨggut
Yug:ɨ:t́, pl. ɨd́eŋ1
Comments:ССЕ 196. Werner 2, 434 <*ɨgǝt'>: final -t' is incorrect (definitely *-ǯ should be reconstructed), but the emendation of *ɨ̄ (Werner would have had *ɨʔǝ) to *ɨGV (which is suggested by 3d tone and reconstructed *ɨgǝ) is correct: the form *ʔɨ̄ǯ- in КС... is indeed erroneous.
