Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102, 110. Although the existence of a separate lexeme ɕʼi is mentioned, the quoted examples only include such pronominal forms as i-ɕʼi "we all", u-ɕʼi ~ u-ɕʼĩ "you all" (i = "we", u = "you (pl.)"). The entry is, therefore, somewhat dubious. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955] or any of D. Bleek's publications.
ǀ'Auni:bà #4
Bleek 1937: 201. Suspiciously glossed as 'they, all' in [Bleek 1956: 13], but with at least one fitting textual example: tuku bà su !ʼʰɔbati "men shall all return". The only possible competition is represented by ǀǀani, one of the meanings of which is also glossed as 'all': cf. ku totos ǀǀani "all the people" [Bleek 1956: 557]. However, both the external evidence and one of the other contexts (ǀǀani e ǂeːi ki ɡǀǀò "much it is raining in the night") show that the main semantics of this quasi-synonym is a designation of simply large quantities ('much, many') rather than exhaustive quantities. We tentatively fill the spot in with the most uncontroversial variant, even if it has no obvious cognates in the rest of South Khoisan and, with its initial labial, suspiciously looks like a word of non-native origin.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ku #
Distribution: Preserved in ǀXam and the Nǀuu cluster. The same morpheme was also in obvious use in the same meaning in Seroa, as the enclitic -ku 'all' [Wuras 1920: 84]. Replacements: There are no reliable etymologies for Nǀuu huni-ki, ǀǀXegwi ɕʼi or ǀʼAuni bà. Precedence of *ku is hypothetically suggested only on the basis of the morpheme's relatively wide distribution; external considerations (a similar morpheme means 'all' in the Taa branch of South Khoisan); and the overall dubious nature of bà in ǀʼAuni. Phonetic shape: The root is known as ku (in ǀXam and Seroa) and ku-a (in a somewhat dubious attestation in ǀǀNg!ke); the latter could simply represent a suffixal extension.
Bleek 1956: 449. Quoted as !uːi in [Bleek 1929: 17]. Emphatic form: !ùi-tǝn ~ !u=!úi-tǝn (with partial reduplication). Transcribed as !ùːi by W. Bleek, but semantically glossed as 'meal, flour' [Bleek 1956: 449]. On the synchronic level the word is undistinguishable from the verb !uːi 'to burn (intr.); to smart, pain' [ibid.] and may be deemed a result of conversion; however, in the light of (a) typological unusualness of the situation (the meaning 'ashes' is more likely to develop from the transitive verb), (b) the additional meaning 'meal, flour' in W. Bleek's notation, (c) external parallels, all of which only confirm the nominal meaning ashes, it is quite probable that we are dealing here with graphic confusion of two phonetically similar, but etymologically different roots.
Distribution: Found only in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster. The rest of the data are either non-existent or not very reliable. Replacements: The only other attested !Wi form for 'ashes' is ǀʼAuni !ʼʰana, whose closest relative, if it is a relative, may be the form ǀǀqʼâɲa 'dirt, rubbish' in !Xóõ; this would imply a semantic development {'dirt' > 'ashes'}. However, nothing about this form or its external connections is really reliable. Phonetic shape: The modern Nǀuu form with the uvular click efflux is automatically projected onto the proto-level, since none of the old sources recognize the presence of uvular clicks in !Wi languages.
Bleek 1956: 383; Bleek 1929: 19. Somewhat dubious, since the word is not backed by any textual examples.
ǂKhomani:ǀǀxʼūŋ-1
Doke 1936: 77. Not attested in Maingard's data. The word has no parallels in the rest of !Kwi and is most likely a relatively recent borrowing from Central Khoisan (the root *ǀǀxʼũ 'bark' is safely reconstructible there).
Bleek 1937: 216; Bleek 1956: 582. Quoted as ǀǀõ in [Bleek 1929: 19].
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation. The only dialect cluster where the word 'bark' was consistently recorded is Nǀuu-ǂKhomani, and it seems to be just a recent borrowing from Central Khoisan. Regardless of whether ǀʼAuni ǀǀõː is also a (poorly transcribed?) borrowing or a native word, it is not sufficient to come up with a proper reconstruction.
Bleek 1956: 416. Quoted as !auːtuː in [Bleek 1929: 21]. Attested only in W. Bleek's notes (absent from L. Lloyd's materials); meaning glossed as 'belly, stomach'. The word is morphologically complex; the suffix -tu frequently appears in body part terms as well as other nouns.
Bleek 1956: 602. Highly dubious, since the meaning is glossed as 'stomach, inside'. However, the only confirming textual example is ŋ ǀǀxʼãː cí "my stomach aches", with a non-diagnostic context, and modern data from the closely related Nǀuu dialects does show the polysemy 'belly / stomach' for this word. No other candidates are attested for ǀǀNg!ke.
Sands et al. 2006. Dubious (acc. to B. Sands, the meaning should rather be 'stomach', whereas 'belly' is rather kunĩ, but this information probably needs additional confirmation; cf. a similarly questionable situation for Bleek's ǀǀNg!ke).
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested; cf., however, ǀʰugaː, pl. ǀʰuga-le 'stomach' [Ziervogel 1955: 43]. This is quite possibly the same word as ǀubwa 'stomach', quoted in [Bleek 1956: 323]; the discrepancy in the intervocalic consonant is disturbing, but in either case, the structure of the word is not typical for ǀǀXegwi or the South Khoisan family as a whole, indicating that this may be a loan from some unidentified source.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀʼai3
Bleek 1937: 214; Bleek 1956: 515.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible: each dialect cluster, in which the word 'belly' is attested, displays a different root. It is interesting that at least several languages seem to lexically distinguish between 'belly' and 'stomach', e. g. ǀXam has !áu-tu 'for belly' and ǀoˤa [Bleek 1956: 317] for 'stomach' (at least, such a distinction is a valid hypothesis based on inspection of textual examples). The word for 'stomach' is actually better reconstructible for Proto-!Wi than 'belly' (since ǀXam ǀoˤa is the etymological equivalent of ǀǀXegwi ǀʰugaː).
Bleek 1956: 450. Quoted as !uiː-ya, pl. !uiː!uiː-ta in [Bleek 1929: 22]. Transcribed by W. Bleek as !úiːya and glossed as 'big, stout' in [Bleek 1956: 450]. The forms are morphologically complex and easily derivable from the verbal stem !ui 'to grow' [Bleek 1956: 449]. Secondary synonym: !érri ~ !érri-tǝn, pl. !ett=!étten [Bleek 1956: 422] 'old / big / grown-up / great'. Attested contexts are insufficient to determine the exact semantic difference between the two words, but only the first one is given as the translation equivalent of English 'big' in [Bleek 1929], and most contexts for !érri seem to confirm the semantics of 'grown-up / old' better than simply 'big' (in size).
ǀǀNg!ke:ɡ!oː #2
Bleek 1929: 22. For some reason, the word is not attested at all in [Bleek 1956], making the corresponding entry in the early source [Bleek 1929] somewhat dubious.
Ziervogel 1955: 41, 55. Meaning glossed as 'large' or 'big'. Quoted as ǀǀxʼeː ~ ǀǀxʼe-xo 'be big' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105]. In [Bleek 1929: 22] the meaning 'big' is rendered as ǀaː and "confirmed" by the textual example in [Bleek 1956: 267]: ha kwe la ǀaː "that man is big". However, this is most likely an incorrect glossing: data from other sources clearly show that ǀaː really means 'long / tall' q.v.
ǀ'Auni:ús ~ úːsi ~ úːši5
Bleek 1937: 208; Bleek 1956: 249. This is the most statistically frequent word for which the meaning 'big' may be suggested unambiguously, cf.: ʘoša te úši "the jackal is big", ǂʼe ki e, se ǀǀʼʌn ús "that person's hut is big" [Bleek 1956: 249]. Two other words are also glossed as meaning 'big': (a) ǀʼã́si 'big, long, tall' [Bleek 1937: 208], which, as in the case with ǀǀXegwi, refers only to 'big' as 'tall, elongated' (cf. !e tari ǀʼãsi "that person is big" = "that person is tall"), see 'long'; (b) kéi 'big' [Bleek 1937: 203], which is phonetically similar to kái 'to grow, to swell' [ibid.] and could mean 'grown (up)', cf. the example: ǀʼa kéi, a ki úki ǀǀʼʌn ǂé "the girl is big, sits on the hut floor" [Bleek 1956: 86]. It also looks suspiciously similar to Proto-Central Khoisan *káí 'big' and could be a borrowing from that family.
ǀHaasi:ɔ̂-si5
Story 1999: 21.
Proto-!Wi:*!xo #
Distribution: Only attested in the basic meaning 'big' in Nǀuu, but preserved in ǀXam as !xoː 'upright, tall' [Bleek 1956: 500]. Possibly preserved in ǀHaasi as well, but could also be interpreted as a re-borrowing from ǂKhomani into that language. Replacements: (a) ǀXam !ui-ya, morphologically derived from !ui 'to grow' {'grow' > 'big'}; (b) ǀǀXegwi ǀǀxeya, of unknown origin; (c) Lower Nǂossob *u-si ~ *o-si, also of unknown origin. It is theoretically possible that this is the main !Wi root for 'big', but lack of parallels in the much better described ǀXam and Nǀuu make this dubious. Phonetic shape: Correspondences between Nǀuu and ǀXam are fairly straightforward.
Story 1999: 21. Semantic difference between the two words is unclear. Judging by textual examples, both may be used in free variation, cf.: ǀǀʰasá kʼa ɔ̂ː-si "the child is big", matabab kʼa !xwaː "Matabab is big" [Story 1999: 24, 25]. It is not excluded that !xwaː is a Nǀuu word used alongside the authentic ǀHaasi equivalent, but there is no way of certifying that.
Proto-!Wi:*u-si ~ *o-si #
The Lower Nǂossob equivalent, also potentially of Proto-!Wi origin; see notes on *!xo.
NUMBER:6
WORD:bird
ǀXam:xʼãnni1
Bleek 1956: 119. Plural form: xʼexʼenn ~ xʼaxʼann. Transcribed as xʼarri ~ xʼar̃r̃i, pl. xʼɛːxʼenn ~ xʼennxʼenn by W. Bleek; quoted as xʼar̃i, pl. xʼexʼen in [Bleek 1929: 22]. All of these forms are always glossed in the meaning 'little bird'. For 'large bird', the correct word seems to be ɡǀǀɛrritǝn-ti, pl. ɡǀǀɛrritǝn-de ([Bleek 1956: 530]; [Bleek 1929: 22]), transparently derived from the word ɡǀǀɛ́rri(ya) 'feather' [ibid.]. It is not quite clear which one is more frequent statistically, but xʼãnni is quoted in several contexts where the semantics 'bird' is clearly more important than 'small', indicating that this is probably the more "generic" word of the two in ǀXam.
Bleek 1956: 334. Quoted as ǀwíː in [Bleek 1929: 22]. Plural form: ǀwi-ŋ ~ ǀwi-nyǝn. Judging by textual examples, the word can also be used in the meaning 'vulture': ǀwiŋ eː müri "vultures eat goats" [Bleek 1956: 334].
Maingard 1937: 240. Plural form: ǀwi-ke ~ ǀwi-ɕe. Cf. ǀʼɔ̄ʔȭ-sī 'small bird' [Doke 1936: 73] (probably the same lexeme, although the click efflux does not match with Maingard's variant).
Sands et al 2006. Phonetically transcribed as [ǀqʰǝi-si] in Miller et al. 2009: 152. Polysemy: 'bird / vulture', although in the latter meaning the word seems to be attested without the singulative suffix -si, i. e. as ǀqʰui [Miller et al. 2009: 155].
Bleek 1937: 205; Bleek 1929: 22; Bleek 1956: 170. The prefixal element si= is attested in several other ǀʼAuni words as well (e. g. si=!ã 'kaross'), but its meaning remains unclear. It must, however, be a separate morpheme due to the general laws of the word structure in ǀʼAuni. Cf. also ɡǀoː 'bird' ([Bleek 1937: 209]; [Bleek 1956: 280]), which could be, despite the difference in click efflux articulation, a prefix-less variant of the same root.
Story 1999: 21. The prefixal element si= here is the same as in ǀʼAuni.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀqʰu-
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except in ǀXam. Replacements: In ǀXam, replaced by xʼãnni, clearly related to Central Khoisan *xʼani 'vulture; (> bird)'; the quirkiness of the situation is in that the original !Wi word for 'bird' was retained in ǀXam, but in the meaning 'vulture': ǀwiː ~ ǀu̯iː (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 334]. Perhaps the original meaning was narrowed down {'bird' > 'vulture'}, while the new word was borrowed from Khoekhoe, although neither the source nor the very fact of borrowing can be ascertained. Phonetic shape: The click efflux is reconstructed based on the attested reflexation in Nǀuu (none of the earlier sources consistently mark uvular effluxes), but is not very certain. "Narrow !Wi" consistently reflects the bivocalic stem *ǀqʰui, but comparison with the Lower Nǂossob languages shows that -i is most likely a fossilized class marker.
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: Glottalized articulation of the affricate is well supported by data from all primary branches.
Bleek 1956: 464. Attested only in L. Lloyd's materials and therefore absent in [Bleek 1929]. A very close synonym exists in ǀʰoá-ka ~ ǀʰóaː-ka ~ ǀʰóa-kǝn ([Bleek 1956: 289]; [Bleek 1929: 22]); however, in [Bleek 1956] the word is glossed as 'dark; black; used for any dark colours', and analysed as derived from the noun ǀʰóˤː 'darkness' [Bleek 1956: 288]. The latter comparison is not certain (vocalic structure of the two words is quite different), but for ǀʰoá-ka several examples with the meaning 'dark blue', etc., are actually quoted, and, with the addition of external parallels that seem to confirm the archaic nature of !weːn in the meaning 'black', the latter is currently the more eligible term for this position of the two.
Bleek 1956: 439, 463. Quoted as !weː in [Bleek 1929: 22]. The latter source adds a secondary synonym: ɡǀɔː, confirmed in the same orthography in [Bleek 1956: 280]. However, textual examples are provided only for !we (even if they are not entirely diagnostic, cf.: ǀxʼaːse ku !oe "a snake which is black" [Bleek 1956: 439]); !we is also much better confirmed by external data.
Ziervogel 1955: 39, 40, 58. The n-prothetic form is, most likely, a samdhi variant. Quoted as ǯwaː ~ ǯwãː 'be black' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108] (the authors note that, as a noun, the word means 'pot', but this is probably just a case of homonymy).
Distribution: Preserved (at least) in the ǀXam-Nǀuu branch and, quite possibly, in ǀǀXegwi. Replacements: ǀHaasi ǀǀe has no etymology and is unlikely to correspond to ǀXam-Nǀuu *!oe (the clicks are incompatible). The word could theoretically reflect something archaic (distribution-wise, this is possible), but, being attested only in a single, not very reliable source, and being completely devoid of internal and external parallels (for now), should not be eligible for proto-status as a primary candidate. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between ǀXam and Nǀuu are straightforward, with the exception of unpredictable aspiration in the latter (this could be a transcriptional error in one or more of the sources). Final nasal in ǀXam is most likely suffixal. A particular problem concerns the form found in ǀǀXegwi. If we analyze it as a separate root, then ǀǀXegwi čwa ~ nčwa finds no suitable parallels in any other !Wi languages and, especially in the light of the variant with the initial nasal, could look suspiciously like a potential borrowing from one of the click-dropping Kalahari Khoe languages (cf., for instance, ǀXaise nʓú 'black'); in fact, the click-dropping could have taken place within ǀǀXegwi itself, since this language regularly dispenses with the palatal click along the same lines as East Kalahari Khoe languages (see 'wind', etc.). However, mass borrowings into ǀǀXegwi basic lexicon from Khoe are not a norm, and this scenario is no more likely than, with certain reservations, an attempt to regard ǀǀXegwi čwa as a potentially regular development from Proto-!Wi *!oe (> *koe > čoe > čwa). At least one similar, if not completely identical, example exists that could also reflect the same palatalization of a former alveolar click or velar stop (see 'stone'), and we also have evidence for palatalization before *e in ǀǀXegwi in the case of the palatal click (cf. the reflexation of *ǂ- in such items as 'rain', 'short', 'wind'). For this reason, we tentatively select the etymological decision that the ǀǀXegwi equivalent for 'black' continues the old !Kwi stem.
Bleek 1956: 634. Emphatic form: ǀǀxau-ka-kǝn. Transcribed by W. Bleek as ǀǀxáu-kǝn ~ ǀǀxáu-ki, emph. ǀǀxau-ka-kǝn; quoted as ǀǀxaukn in [Bleek 1929: 22]. The form is morphologically complex, but only suffixal forms are attested. Possible secondary synonym: ɡ!aːuː, emph. ɡ!aːuː-kǝn ~ ɡ!aːuː-gǝn [Bleek 1956: 378]; attested only in L. Lloyd's records and not confirmed in any way by external data.
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: The most difficult question here is whether ǀǀXegwi ƛʼẽũ (a form attested only in the sparse data of Lanham and Hallowes) can go back to *ǀǀxau(-N), since normally the lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi develops out of a palatal click in Proto-!Wi (see 'dog', 'moon', etc.). Very tentatively we accept this as part of the same etymology, due to the possibility of transcriptional error or a unique development of the lateral influx before a velar fricative efflux (no other examples in the corpus). Apart from ǀǀXegwi, most of the other forms correspond to each other on a trivial level. Semantics and structure: The stem is either used on its own or with a nominal extension (-ke ~ -ken), typical of many other basic nominal items as well.
Bleek 1956: 457. Plural form: !waː-gǝn ~ !wáː-ka-kǝn ~ !wáː-kn. Quoted as !wa, pl. !aːgn in [Bleek 1929: 23] (the plural form is probably a misprint for *!waːgn). The word is very similar in form to 'leg, root' [Bleek 1956: 457], but subtle differences such as a short vowel in 'bone' (!wắ) vs. long vowel in 'leg' (!wáː), or the fact that only 'leg' forms its plural stem with the aid of reduplication (!wá=!wá-gǝn) indicate that these words are not even complete homonyms. Cf. also !ã́ 'bone of arm or foreleg' [Bleek 1956: 401], similar in form but probably a different root nonetheless.
Bleek 1956: 548. Polysemy: 'bone / bone knife'. Quoted as ǀǀaba, pl. ǀǀaǀǀa in [Bleek 1929: 23]; ǀǀaba, pl. ǀǀaǀǀa ~ ǀǀɛŋ in [Bleek 2000: 19]. Comparison of sg. and pl. forms shows that *ǀǀa is likely to have been the original root, although this particular word-formation model is very unusual.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Quoted as !aː in [Bleek 1929: 23] and [Bleek 1956: 401].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂ1a
Distribution: Preserved in ǀXam and ǀǀXegwi; replaced in the entire Nǀuu cluster; not attested in Lower Nǂossob languages. Replacements: Common Nǀuu *ǀǀaba 'bone' regularly corresponds to ǀXam ǀǀabba 'a piece of eland's bone that forms part of the completed arrow' [Bleek 1956: 548]; this allows to suppose a broadening of the original meaning: {'piece of animal bone' > 'bone (gen.)'}. The opposite development is not excluded, but contradicts the general distribution of *ǂ2a. Reconstruction shape: The correspondence of ǀXam !- to ǀǀXegwi !- is very rare, but all instances of ǀǀXegwi !- go back to a special phoneme that we tentatively mark as *ǂ1-, which is also reflected in ǀXam as !-, so essentially the correspondence seems to be regular (see 'one' for another example). Labialization in ǀXam, as in many other similar cases, seems to be secondary (see 'foot', 'liver', etc.), although its causes and conditions have not yet been established.
Bleek 1956: 623. Quoted as ɳǀǀɔein-tu in [Bleek 1929: 28]. Transcribed by W. Bleek as ɳǀǀwaíŋ-ttu ~ ɳǀǀwéin-ttu [Bleek 1956: 623]. The element -tu is a standard suffix for body parts. A possible synonym is ǀǀaːxu [Bleek 1929: 28], ǀǀaxu [Bleek 1956: 564], but the word is only found in W. Bleek's early (less certain) records; examples of contexts given in [Bleek 1956] yield both the meaning 'chest' and 'women's breasts'. This may, in fact, be simply one specific usage of the word ǀǀaxu ~ ǀǀãxu 'side' [ibid.]. The principal word for 'chest' is quite distinct from the main word for 'female breast' (also 'milk'): !ʰwai ~ !ʰwei-tǝn [Bleek 1956: 431].
Bleek 1956: 624. Quoted as ɳǀǀweːntu in [Bleek 1929: 28]. Possible secondary synonym: ǀǀaːtu [Bleek 1929: 28], reproduced in [Bleek 1956: 560] as ǀǀatyu ~ ǀǀãtu, pl. ǀǀate-ŋǝn, with no textual examples (for some reason, the word is marked there as "SI", i. e. ǀXam rather than ǀǀNg!ke, but this is almost certainly a mistake, since the form is credited to D.B., i. e. Dorothea Bleek, whose research was on ǀǀNg!ke rather than ǀXam).
Ziervogel 1955: 43. Quoted in the phrase haː-n-šagu 'it is my chest' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98]. Distinct from ɕʰa-zi 'female breast' [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102]. The same word is quoted as kaː-zi in [Bleek 1929: 28] and [Bleek 1956: 84] (with the palatal consonant is transcribed as a velar), but the meaning is erroneously glossed as 'chest' (male).
ǀ'Auni:ǂan3
Bleek 1937: 219. Quoted as ǂʌn in [Bleek 1929: 28] and [Bleek 1956: 666]. Distinct from ǀǀẽi-si 'female breast' [Bleek 1937: 216].
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǀǀoiŋ #
Distribution: Preserved in the entire ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster, probably replaced elsewhere. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ɡǀǀɔintu 'breast' [Bleek 1956: 532]. Replacements: (a) ǀǀXegwi ša-gu regularly corresponds to Nǀuu ǂqʰaː 'sternum / breastbone' (see notes on Nǀuu; the correspondence is exactly the same as in the word for 'wind' q.v.); it is likely that we deal here with a broadening of the original meaning ('breastbone' > '(male) chest'), provided, of course, that the ǀǀXegwi item is accurately glossed as far as semantics is concerned; (b) ǀʼAuni ǂan 'chest' has no etymology; because of this, it is a serious contender for Proto-!Wi 'breast', but is not technically reconstructible to the same level of chronological depth as *ɳǀǀoiŋ. Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the click efflux is approximate (nasalization, marked in early transcriptions by W. and D. Bleek, could technically reflect the influence of nasalized vowels), as is the reconstruction of the stem diphthong. It is quite probable that the stem incorporates the same nominal suffix -iŋ as in other items on the Swadesh list (e. g. 'dog' q.v.), in which case one could think of a morphological segmentation into *ɳǀǀo + *-iŋ, with subsequent assimilative processes (*-oi- > -oe- or *-oi- > -ui-) depending on the dialect. Semantics and structure: All of the discussed items are strictly limited to the semantics of 'male chest'; the meaning 'female chest' in !Kwi is usually expressed by the same stem as 'milk' and represented by other lexical roots.
Bleek 1956: 544, 566. Quoted as ǀǀe ~ ǀǀa in [Bleek 1929: 25]. Transcribed as ǀǀa ~ ǀǀaː ~ ǀǀɛː by W. Bleek. The vocalic variation is probably due to contraction with different class markers, although this is hard to verify based on available descriptions and examples. It is important to stress that, even though [Bleek 1929] quotes this stem under 'burn (intr.)', most textual examples in [Bleek 1956] explicitly confirm its transitive usage; conversely, 'burn (tr.)', for which she gives the equivalent !uːi, is the intransitive stem 'to burn / smart / pain' [Bleek 1956: 449], so there must have been some confusion.
Bleek 1956: 545, 566. Quoted as ǀǀa in [Bleek 1929: 25] and [Bleek 2000: 21]. Vocalic gradation is a typical feature of short monosyllabic verbal stems in ǀǀNg!ke. As in the case of ǀXam, [Bleek 1929: 25] glosses ǀǀa as intransitive, but textual examples clearly confirm its transitive use: cf. ǀǀʼõĩ ɳǀe sa, ha ǀǀa ŋ "the sun comes, it burns me" [Bleek 1956: 545], etc. In the meaning 'to burn (transitive)', [Bleek 1929: 25] yields the equivalent kukúru, which, in this particular form, is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956]; the closest parallel is kurúke 'burn' [Bleek 1956: 107], which is only attested as intransitive (!): ǀʼi kurúke "the fire burns" [ibid.].
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:!xao2
Sands et al. 2006. The stem is used both as a transitive and intransitive verb.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested. In [Bleek 1929: 25], only kʰa 'to burn (intr.)' is quoted, but the word is not even confirmed in [Bleek 1956].
ǀ'Auni:ǀá3
Bleek 1937: 209; Bleek 1956: 294. Meaning glossed as 'to burn, light a fire, roast'. The accompanying example is ǀá n ǀʼi "light the fire" (typologically, "light the fire" frequently = "burn the fire" in this region, so this may indeed have been the default verb for 'burn' in ǀʼAuni).
Distribution: Preserved in ǀXam, ǀǀNg!ke, possibly also ǀHaasi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀǀaː 'to burn' [Bleek 1956: 545]. Replacements: (a) Nǀuu !xao 'to burn' is comparable with ǀXam !xãũa 'to cook' [Bleek 1956: 498], but it is not possible to determine the original semantics based on this contrast, although distribution of the various terms for 'burn' shows that Nǀuu !xao is clearly a semantic innovation; (b) ǀʼAuni ǀá is an isolated entry with no parallels in sight. The root *ǀǀa is found in [Bleek 1956: 545] for both ǀǀXegwi and ǀʼAuni, but only in the meaning 'to cook', which presupposes an areal semantic isogloss: {'to burn' > 'to cook'}. Reconstruction shape: We select *ǀǀa as the basic (original) variant of the root; *ǀǀe seems to be the result of contraction with a suffixal marker. The issue of why the ǀHaasi equivalent was recorded with a labialized vowel is even more obscure; however, we do not find this a sufficient reason to exclude the word from the etymology, since it does not have a better one, and complicated, poorly understood vowel gradation in verbal roots is a commonality in all !Wi languages.
Bleek 1956: 593. Plural form: ǀǀu-ǀǀúttǝn (with reduplication and suffixation). Quoted as ǀǀuru, pl. ǀǀuǀǀutǝn in [Bleek 1929: 60]. Transcribed as ǀǀuru, pl. ǀǀuǀǀúddi ~ ǀǀuǀǀúti by W. Bleek. Plural forms show that -ru in the sg. forms should be judged a detachable class suffix (at least, synchronically).
Ziervogel 1955: 43. Plural form: !ʼelo-le. Cf. also ǀǀɔla 'fingernail' in [Bleek 1929: 60] and [Bleek 1956: 586]. The forms in [Ziervogel 1955] and D. Bleek's records are compatible only if we assume that at least one of them has been significantly mistranscribed.
Story 1999: 22. The form is probably plural (kʼa= is a productive plural prefix). Cf. ǂü̃ 'finger' [Story 1999: 21]; despite the difference in click effluxes, this might be the same root.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀqor-
Distribution: Preserved in all branches of the group, but possibly replaced in ǀǀXegwi and ǀHaasi. Replacements: (a) ǀǀXegwi !ʼelo-loŋ is a dubious entry in Ziervogel's materials: it contains a rare case of the alveolar click (attested either as a reflexation of the rare phoneme *ǂ1- or in borrowings) and contradicts the materials of D. Bleek, which clearly show that the old word for 'fingernail' was being preserved in at least some dialects of ǀǀXegwi. Consequently, this may be a pseudo-replacement, particularly if the word was mistranscribed or its semantics was inaccurately glossed; (b) ǀHaasi kʼa=ɳǂü is formally a plural from ǂü̃ 'finger'; it is not understood whether R. Story simply misglossed the semantics of the 'word' or whether the meanings 'finger' and 'fingernail' were genuinely merged in ǀHaasi. In the former case, this is yet another pseudo-replacement. Reconstruction shape: The uvular efflux is tentatively set up for this word based on the accurately transcribed form in Nǀuu (earlier sources do not recognize the existence of uvular effluxes in most !Wi languages). The stem is always bisyllabic, but the second vowel is hard to reconstruct: reflexes of *ǀǀqoru, *ǀǀqoro, *ǀǀqori, and *ǀǀqora are all attested, with the variation reflecting either old morphological gradation (e. g. different suffixes for sg. and pl. numbers) or the results of vocalic assimilation (both with the first syllable vowel and the vocalism of additional suffixes, e. g. *ǀǀqoro-sa > ǀǀora-sa in ǀʼAuni, etc.).
NUMBER:14
WORD:cloud
ǀXam:ǀwaˤː-gǝn1
Bleek 1956: 329. Emphatic form: ǀwáˤ-ka-kǝn. Transcribed as ǀwaː-gǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀwa-tn ~ ǀwaː-gn in [Bleek 1929: 29]; the first variant here is, however, most likely a misunderstanding - in [Bleek 1956: 331] the same lexeme is glossed as 'star, cloud', even though all the textual examples quoted from W. Bleek's and L. Lloyd's records exclusively convey the meaning 'star', never 'cloud'. Even if both words are formed from the same root (typologically, very dubious), they are clearly distinguished through different suffixes (velar -kǝn for 'cloud', dental -tǝn for 'star' q.v.). As a possible secondary synonym, cf. also ɡ!ùru 'white clouds' [Bleek 1956: 389] (apparently a more rarely encountered word than ǀwaːˤ-gǝn, but analysis of contexts does not exclude the possibility that the latter is really 'raincloud' and the former is 'white cloud'; were this to be confirmed, we would have to swap the forms around).
ǀǀNg!ke:tiɔː-ke2
Bleek 1956: 203; Bleek 1929: 29. In the former source, the form is defined as plural ('clouds': !àˤ kãũ tiɔːke "rain falls from the clouds"), which makes sense, since -ke is one of the productive plural markers in ǀǀNg!ke. Secondary synonym: ɡ!um ([Bleek 1956: 388]; [Bleek 1929: 29]), with no textual examples.
Bleek 1929: 29. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955] or Lanham & Hallowes' papers. The existence of the word is confirmed in the English indexes in [Bleek 1956: 705], but the main section of the dictionary only lists ǀǀxeːŋ 'woman' [Bleek 1956: 635] - probably a typographic error ("merger" of two entirely different words). Still, a somewhat dubious entry.
ǀ'Auni:ǀʼʰum-sa4
Bleek 1937: 209; Bleek 1956: 290. Meaning glossed as 'cloud' (sg.) in the former source and as 'clouds' (pl.) in the latter; according to D. Bleek's observation, the suffix -sa generally marks singulative forms (opposed to -si in the plural). The word is not found at all in [Bleek 1929: 29], which yields a different equivalent, ǀǀkʼani, not confirmed in later sources.
ǀHaasi:!al=ǀxwai #5
Story 1999: 21. Meaning glossed as 'clouds' (pl.). There are not enough data to decipher this compound properly.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible. Each language has its own equivalent for this Swadesh meaning, and the accuracy of semantic notation may be placed under doubt in most cases. Considering that the meaning 'cloud' is generally very unstable in the Khoisan area, we prefer to abstain from any attempts at Proto-!Wi reconstruction here.
NUMBER:15
WORD:cold
ǀXam:xʼaoˤ ~ xʼáo1
Bleek 1956: 119. Emphatic form: xʼaːoˤ-wa. Quoted as xʼàoˤ in [Bleek 1929: 29]. Transcribed as xʼáo ~ xʼaːoː by W. Bleek. The word is listed as the first equivalent for 'cold' in [Bleek 1929], said to be the lexical opposite of kau 'to be warm' in [Bleek 1956] and illustrated with several examples in which it is found in such noun phrases as 'cold wind' etc. Possible synonyms include: (a) sérri ~ ssèrri-tǝn ~ ssérri-tǝn 'cool, cold' [Bleek 1956: 167], also found as a noun: ssérreː ~ ssèrreya ~ ssérri-tǝn 'cold wind' [ibid.]; (b) ǀǀxwèː ~ ǀǀxwéː 'to be cold, become cold', ǀǀxwéː-tǝn 'cold (n.)' [Bleek 1956: 639]. Attested examples and descriptions do not allow to estimate these words' real chances at filling the primary slot for 'cold'.
Bleek 1956: 289; Bleek 1929: 29. The latter source also mentions a special verbal stem siːya 'to be cold', but it is not confirmed anywhere in [Bleek 1956].
Maingard 1937: 243. Attested in the phrase ŋ ɕa ǀʼʰu "I am cold". Entirely different stem, not confirmed by external sources, is found in [Doke 1936: 63]: kāɾīʔī.
Ziervogel 1955: 41. Entirely different root listed in [Bleek 1929: 29]: !xoa. Cf.: ha !xoa "it is cold" [Bleek 1956: 500].
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀʼoɽa4
Bleek 1937: 217. Quoted as ǀǀʼɔɽa in [Bleek 1956: 626]. Different word quoted in [Bleek 1929: 29]: ǀǀxau, not confirmed in later sources.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible; every language has its own equivalent for this Swadesh meaning. Curiously, the best candidate for Proto-!Wi 'cold' is a word whose reflexes cannot be easily defined as the basic equivalent for 'cold' in any attested !Wi language: Proto-!Wi *ǀǀxoe, marginally attested both in ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke (ɡǀǀaː ǀǀxweː "night's coolness, evening" [Bleek 1956: 639]) and possibly of the same origin as ǀʼAuni ǀǀxau [Bleek 1929: 29] (although the coda correspondences would be quite irregular) and ǀǀXegwi !xoa [Bleek 1929: 29], under the condition that Bleek's ! in this case mistranscribes the lateral click ǀǀ. This choice is also indirectly supported by external parallels in Taa. Nevertheless, judging from a formal perspective, attested data are too scarce and ambiguous to postulate a lexical replacement from Proto-!Wi to all of its modern day descendants.
Bleek 1956: 165. Quoted as sʼi ~ ši ~ sʼe in [Bleek 1929: 30]. Transcribed as se ~ sːe ~ ssʼe by W. Bleek. The same root is also encountered with different vocalism, transcribed as sːaː ~ ssʼaː ~ sːa by W. Bleek and sːaː by L. Lloyd [Bleek 1956: 161]; also saŋ ~ sːaŋ ~ sːaˤŋ (W. Bleek), sːaˤŋ (L. Lloyd) [Bleek 1956: 163]. The variations are typical of verbal roots (especially statistically frequent ones) and may indicate contractions with various class markers. Some of the variants, as attested in the accompanying examples, may also have the causative meaning 'to bring'.
Bleek 1956: 161, 165, 166, 168. Quoted as si ~ se ~ saː in [Bleek 1929: 30]; sa ~ sieya ~ saː in [Bleek 2000: 20, 22]. Vocalic variations are typical of simple verbal stems and may indicate contractions with various class markers or verbal particles.
Maingard 1937: 245, 251. Transcribed as sīyā [Doke 1936: 75]. Secondary synonym: ǀǀŋ̄ [Doke 1936: 69] - a highly dubious form, considering a complete lack of external parallels. Perhaps the real meaning is slightly different ('to arrive'?), or imperative ('come!').
Ziervogel 1955: 51; Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102. Past tense form is quoted as seya, future tense - as se [ibid.]. Quoted as se ~ sa in [Bleek 1929: 30] and [Bleek 1956: 161, 165].
Bleek 1937: 205; Bleek 1956: 161, 165, 168. Quoted as sɛː in [Bleek 1929: 30]. Vocalic variants may indicate contractions with class markers or verbal particles.
Story 1999: 21. Secondary synonyms include: ǀi ~ ɳǀi ~ ɳǀi-sa. These forms may be the same as cʼi, provided the affricate could sometimes be misheard by Story as a dental click; in any case, unlike cʼi, they have no external links.
Proto-!Wi:*sa ~ *si
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau saː ~ seː id., ǀǀKuǀǀe sa ~ si id. [Bleek 1956: 161, 165]. Reconstruction shape: Initial consonant is a sibilant (as opposed to 'bite' q.v.), as preserved in the majority of reflexes. Occasional attestations of a glottalized sibilant (sʼ-) or even a glottalized affricate (cʼ-) most likely reflect the result of stem contraction: *sV-/ʔ/a ~ *sV-/ʔ/i (combinations with different suffixes) > *sVʔa ~ *sVʔi > *sʼa ~ *sʼi. As in many similar cases, original root vocalism is difficult to reconstruct because of contractions with various vocalic suffixes; both *a and *i are at least equally probable.
Bleek 1956: 267. Transcribed as ǀʼaː, emphatic f. ǀʼaː-kǝn, pl. ǀʼáǀʼa-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀʼaː in [Bleek 1929: 33]. Secondary synonym: ǀúː-kǝn ~ ǀù-kǝn ~ ǀù-ka (L. Lloyd), ǀuː-ka ~ ǀúː-kǝn (L. Lloyd) [Bleek 1956: 324]. Relations between these two stems are complex. The first root is glossed as 'to fight, die, be killed; n. fight, harm, curse' in [Bleek 1956]; this means, almost for certain, that we are dealing here with at least several phonetically close, but confused stems, but the really interesting detail is that, of the quoted examples, very few actually refer to 'death' (although at least one phrase from W. Bleek's records is very explicitly translated: ŋ ǀʼaː 'I die'). The second stem, possibly derived from ǀu 'to be ill' [Bleek 1956: 322], is translated as 'to die, be dead, faint', and may rather express the stative meaning '(to be) dead' (cf.: ha xʼauki ɲ!aunko ǀuːka 'he has not yet died', etc.), but it is also possible that the word was on its way to replace the older root ǀʼa (a chance which it never got due to the extinction of the ǀXam language).
Bleek 1937: 208; Bleek 1956: 267. Meaning glossed as 'dead'; cf. kʰora ǀʼe kie ǀʼã "Khora is dead". In [Bleek 1937: 208], the word is actually transcribed as ǀǀʼã; the lateral click is clearly a misprint, but it is curious that in D. Bleek's earlier records, the word 'to die' is transcribed as ǀʼaǀʼan [Bleek 1929: 33] - possibly a reduplicated variant of the verbal stem? Cf. also presumably suffixal derivates: ǀʼáuo ~ ǀʼáu 'dead' [Bleek 1937: 208]. There is also a strange expression heri ɳ!uːba ([Bleek 1937: 202]; [Bleek 1956: 60]), which D. Bleek translates as 'has died'; probably some sort of idiomatic euphemism.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for ǀHaasi. Additionally cf. ǀǀKxau ǀʼa, ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀʼa id. [Bleek 1956: 267]. Replacements: In ǀHaasi, replaced by !ʰo of unclear origin. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally quite straightforward. Lack of click glottalization in Ziervogel's and Lanham / Hallowes' ǀǀXegwi data is not easy to explain; possibly the result of contamination with the old !Wi verb 'to kill' q.v.
Bleek 1956: 433, 467. Emphatic form: !úíŋ-yaŋ. Plural form: !úíŋ-!úíŋ ~ !wìŋ-!wiŋ ~ !ʰwíŋ-!ʰwíŋ. Quoted as !wiŋ in [Bleek 1929: 34]. Also transcribed as !wíŋ by W. Bleek.
Miller et al. 2007: 58. The two variants allegedly reflect dialectal variants (first one is Western dialect, second one is Eastern). Quoted as ǂʰou in [Westphal 1965: 141].
Ziervogel 1955: 37, 39, 44. Plural form: ƛu-me. Quoted as ƛʰwiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 112]. The plural form is quoted as ƛʰu-miŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 104]. Quoted as ǀǀwi in [Bleek 1929: 34] and [Bleek 1956: 600]. The latter source also quotes the form !xẽ as a synonym [Bleek 1956: 499]. It is not highly likely that ǀǀwi and !xẽ are phonetic variants, or even side effects of mistranscription; !xẽ is probably a different word (which, furthermore, could have been misglossed).
Bleek 1937: 219; Bleek 1956: 663. Quoted as ǀʼʰaŋ in [Bleek 1929: 34] (could be the same root with a misheard click, cf. the transcription ǂʰaŋ in the closely related ǀHaːsi language).
Story 1999: 21, 30. Plural form: ǂʰaaŋ ~ ka=ǂʰaaŋ.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂʰu-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǂʰuni id., ǀǀKuǀǀe !ʼwiŋ id., !Gã!ne !ʼinyi id., Seroa kuenia id. [Bleek 1956: 104, 400, 495, 662]. Reconstruction shape: The original palatal click is correctly reflected as alveolar (!) in ǀXam and Bleek's ǀǀNg!ke, and expectedly develops into a lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi. The aspirated click efflux is tentatively reconstructed based on accurately transcribed Nǀuu data. Semantics and structure: The stem displays a significant number of suffixal variants: *ǂʰu-iŋ (ǀXam, ǀǀNg!ke; modern Nǀuu *ǂʰuɲ probably goes back to the same variant, with palatalization of the nasal and subsequent contraction of the stem), *ǂʰu-aŋ (Lower Nǂossob, with subsequent contraction in both dialects), *ǂʰu-e ~ *ǂʰu-i (ǀǀXegwi). Their functions in Proto-!Wi and/or subsequent stages of language development remain unclear (unfortunately, where some of these variants are attested in the same language, as in Ziervogel's ǀǀXegwi records, their respective functions are unknown).
Bleek 1956: 126. Transcribed as xʼwã ~ xʼwãŋ ~ xʼwã́ ~ xʼwẽː ~ xʼwɛ̃ by W. Bleek. Quoted as xʼwã ~ xʼwẽ in [Bleek 1929: 34]. Vocalic gradation, as in many other simple verbal stems, probably reflects results of merger with different class markers.
Bleek 1956: 117, 121, 601. Quoted as xʼã ~ xʼẽĩ in [Bleek 1929: 34]. Occurrence of the lateral click in the variant ǀǀxʼã is a unique idiosyncrasy that is most probably negligible (no etymological data can confirm click articulation for this stem).
Miller et al. 2009: 157. Transcribed phonetically as [kχʼǝ̃ĩ]. In [Sands et al. 2006], additional (morphologically determined?) variants xʼa and xʼã are given.
Ziervogel 1955: 39. This is the present tense stem; the past tense is glossed as xʼaː [ibid.]. Quoted as xʼẽĩ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115]. Quoted as xʼã ~ xʼẽ in [Bleek 1929: 34]; as xʼaː ~ ǀǀxʼẽ in [Bleek 1956: 117, 604].
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe kwã ~ ǀǀxʼwãĩ, Seroa xʼã, !Gã!ne xʼaː id. [Bleek 1956: 109, 116, 609]. Reconstruction shape: Nasalization is such a persistent feature of this stem's vocalism that it is tentatively included in the reconstruction, although it is also true that there are non-nasal reflexes as well (ǀǀXegwi, ǀHaasi), and that nasalization could be a secondary feature, generalized to the root from contracted variants with verbal suffixes. Labialization in ǀXam is clearly secondary (no other language has this feature, and "superfluous" labialization, particularly after velars, is a very common feature in this language).
Bleek 1956: 581, 606. Transcribed as ǀǀo ~ ǀǀoː ~ ǀǀɔː ~ ǀǀxʼɔ́ː ~ ǀǀxʼɔːwà by W. Bleek. In [Bleek 1929: 35], this stem is only mentioned as the verb 'to dry' (transitive: ǀǀɔ́ː, intransitive: ǀǀɔ́ːwa), but there is no principal difference between verbal and adjectival roots in ǀXam, and Bleek's given equivalent for 'dry (adj.)': xʼɔro-kn = xʼɔ́ro-kǝn [Bleek 1956: 125] is supported by much fewer examples, always with the meaning 'dried (in the sun), shrivelled, burnt' rather than 'not wet'. Conversely, for ǀǀoː cf. such examples as: ɳǀǀaiŋ ǀǀaiːe se ǀǀɔː '...so that the inside of the house may dry'; ŋ tu ǀu-g ɳǀe ǀǀoː 'my mouth became dry', etc. [Bleek 1956: 581], showing that this word has a wider range of application. Cf. also ǀòːwa 'dry' (of bones?), illustrated by one dubious context in W. Bleek's records [Bleek 1956: 321]. We select as primary the word that is illustrated by the most examples (and also has the most immediate and explicit external correlations).
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 35], the adjective 'dry' is given as xʼoː, but the form is not confirmed in the larger dictionary [Bleek 1956] and may have been erroneous. The same source [Bleek 1929: 35] also states that the "S1" (ǀXam) forms for the verb 'to dry' (ǀǀɔ́ː, etc.) are the same for "S2" (ǀǀNg!ke), but, again, this is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956] (external data on Nǀuu shows, however, that this is probably true). Since both of the stems are dubious, we prefer to leave the slot empty.
Not attested. Cf., however, ǀǀoː 'thirsty' in [Bleek 1956: 581] (attested in the phrase n ǀǀoː kʰa "I am thirsty for water"); polysemy 'dry / thirsty' is typical for other !Kwi languages as well.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀxʼom2
Bleek 1937: 217; Bleek 1956: 607.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀo #
Distribution: Common for the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster, not attested elsewhere (unless the ǀʼAuni form is related, which is dubious). Replacements: ǀʼAuni ǀǀxʼom is consistently marked by D. Bleek as possessing a velar affricate efflux and a coda in -m, which makes it incompatible with the forms attested in ǀXam and Nǀuu despite general phonetic similarity. However, as a lexical replacement this term currently has no etymology. Theoretically, the ǀʼAuni form, as the only representative of the Lower Nǂossob branch, could also claim Proto-!Wi status in the basic meaning 'dry', but external parallels in Taa support the priority of the ǀXam-Nǀuu branch. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between ǀXam and Nǀuu are mostly trivial, although it is not clear why the word is sometimes transcribed with a velar affricate efflux in Bleek's ǀXam transcriptions.
Bleek 1956: 485; Bleek 1929: 35. Plural form: ɳ!u-ɳ!ú-ntu. Transcribed as ɳ!u-ntu, pl. ɳ!u-ɳ!u-ntu-kǝn by W. Bleek. Suffixal -tu is a regular extension for body part terms; its variant -ntu in this particular case is either due to assimilation with the nasal click or a combination with yet another suffix (*ɳ!u-n-tu), since reliable external data for this root generally do not support a second nasal in the medial or final position.
Story 1999: 21. Meaning glossed as 'ears' (pl.). The first morpheme is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix; =kʼu= is the plural prefix; the rest of the word is written with a space (ǂna am), possibly indicating diaeresis.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǂu-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Palatal click influx is unambiguously indicated by evidence from Nǀuu (where it is preserved) and ǀǀXegwi (where it regularly yields a lateral affricate). Nasal efflux is preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi, where it dissolves together with the click-type articulation as such. Root vowel is represented as u in all daughter languages except for ǀHaasi, where the reflexation of a should probably be regarded in connection with the unclear suffixal extension -am. Semantics and structure: The basic monosyllabic root is always encountered in the company of various nominal formatives: *ɳǂu-i ~ ɳǂu-(i)-ntu.
Bleek 1956: 372, 412. Same word as 'sand' q.v. Emphatic form: !kʼãũ-ń. Transcribed by W. Bleek as !ãũ ~ !kʼãũ ~ !ʼãũ, emphatic form: !ʼãũŋ. Quoted as !ʼãũ in [Bleek 1929: 35]. The Bleek/Lloyd transcription with -kʼ- in the click efflux position suggests that the word may have been phonetically realized as *!qʼãũ, with uvular articulation of the closure, but this is hard to prove.
Not attested properly. Cf.: ɲa ǀʼiː "it is the ground" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105]; or ha ši e ka ǀǀwaːlo "pour it on the ground" [Bleek 1956: 597] (neither the word ǀʼiː nor the word ǀǀwaːlo should be included in our wordlist because of dubious semantics).
Bleek 1937: 212. Meaning glossed as 'ground'. Quoted in [Bleek 1929: 35] as ɡ!aː 'earth'; in [Bleek 1956: 374] as ɡ!ʼa 'ground' and ɡ!aːa 'dust'. All textual examples are on the meaning 'ground' rather than required 'earth' (substance): o toa ki ɡ!ʼa "he lies on the ground", etc., but 'earth' (substance) and 'ground' (surface) are rarely distinguished in Peripheral Khoisan.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!ʼãũ ~ *!qʼãũ
Distribution: Preserved in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster; exact fate in the other branches unclear. Replacements: In ǀʼAuni, the proper cognate form to the Proto-!Wi root is glossed as !ʼãũ 'dust' [Bleek 1937: 212]; provided that this glossing is accurate, it is reasonable to suggest a local semantic shift {'earth' > 'dust'}. The "new" ǀʼAuni form for 'earth', however, although it is phonetically similar to 'dust', is not easily comparable from an etymological point of view, and its origins are obscure. Reconstruction shape: Click influx is clearly alveolar, as reflected in all daughter languages. Click efflux is not adequately reconstructible at present: Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni suggest a simple glottal stop, but the variation in attested ǀXam forms strongly suggests something more complicated, possibly a uvular ejective (*-qʼ-) or, perhaps, a complex interaction between click efflux and subsequent vocalic features (e. g. original *!aʔuŋ, misheard or reflected as *!ʼauŋ in certain cases).
Bleek 1956: 3, 54, 60. Also attested in reduplicated (emphatic?) form: hã-hãː [ibid.]. Transcribed as ãː ~ hãː ~ hĩː by W. Bleek. Quoted as hĩ ~ hã ~ ã in [Bleek 1929: 35]. Vowel gradation is typical of basic verbal roots and probably reflects mergers with different class markers. It is not clear whether the aspiration in the initial position is truly phonological (most external data do not corroborate this).
Ziervogel 1955: 35, 50. Past tense form is transcribed as ʔãː. Quoted as ʔĩː ~ ʔiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]; as ẽ ~ a ~ iː in [Bleek 1929: 35]; as ã ~ ẽ ~ iː in [Bleek 1956: 3, 36, 67].
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: We provisionally reconstruct the form with a glottal stop rather than aspirated h- in word-initial position, since the aspiration is marked only sporadically and does not seem to have any phonological significance (unlike, e. g., the initial phoneme in 'far' q.v.). Vowel nasalization could be of morphological origin, but is so persistent (attested in all branches and most languages) that it seems reasonable to carry it over to the proto-level. Vocalic gradation, however, is by all means of a morphological origin; we project the most frequently attested vowel (*a) onto the proto-level.
Bleek 1956: 414, 416, 467. Plural form: !ui-tǝn. Transcribed as !áui ~ !ʼaúi, emph. !ʼáui-ya, pl. !wí-ten ~ !wi-tǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as !aui, pl. !wiː-tn in [Bleek 1929: 35]. Fluctuating articulation of the click efflux suggests reconstruction of the "real" ǀXam form as *!qʼau-i (where -i is a suffixal class marker; the plural form may be interpreted as reduction *!qʼau-i-tǝn > *!qʼu-i-tǝn).
Bleek 1956: 396, 467; Bleek 1929: 35. Plural form: !wi-tǝn. In [Bleek 2000: 19] the nominal paradigm is presented as an irregular one: sg. !ʼʰãũ, pl. !wi-tǝn, but it is not clear if this is really an example of suppletivism (there is enough phonetic resemblance between the two forms so as not to rule out the possibility of a transcriptional error).
Doke 1936: 85. Somewhat dubious, since the meaning is glossed as 'ostrich egg' rather than '(any) egg'. However, the word is the same as 'egg' in Nǀuu, and no other South Khoisan language seems to have a root-reflected opposition between this general vs. specialized meaning, so it is relatively safe to include the word in the lexicostatistical calculations. Not attested in Maingard's data.
Bleek 1937: 214. Also !ũ̀i-sa, with singulative suffix, in [Bleek 1956: 493]. Slightly dubious, since the meaning is glossed as 'ostrich egg'. Considering, however, that this is the "default" egg among the ǀʼAuni, that no other words for 'egg' are attested, and that the word's external cognates all mean simply 'egg', the word may be deemed eligible for inclusion.
Story 1999: 21. The double vowel is written with diaeresis (iï), possibly indicating a pronunciation like kiʔi.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂui-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for ǀHaasi (provided the ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke forms are indeed phonetically compatible with the rest, see below). Replacements: Replaced in ǀHaasi by kʼii, a word of unclear origin. Reconstruction shape: Click influx is palatal (regularly preserved in Nǀuu and shifted to lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi). Most of the reliable sources generally agree on zero (velar) efflux as the original articulation, but every now and then, a glottal stop appears in the transcriptions (ǀXam, ǀǀNg!ke, Lanham & Hallowes' transcription of ǀǀXegwi); this may be indicative of a more complex pattern of original articulation, e. g. *ǂuʔi. The appearance of -a- in the singular form of the ǀXam equivalent is another problem; one possible scenario is an original paradigm that would look like *ǂaʔwi (*ǂaʔbi?), plural *ǂʼwi-ten with reduction and contraction. This would explain most of the variations and unusual features, but remains flimsy without additional confirming examples. For now, we prefer to leave the shape of the reconstruction closer to the most reliably attested form (Nǀuu).
Bleek 1956: 213. Plural form: caxaiː-tǝn ~ caxaíː-ta-kǝn. Transcribed as cʼaxáu, pl. cʼaxái-tǝn ~ cʼaːxai-ta-kǝn ~ cʼa-cʼaxu-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as cʼaxáu, pl. cʼaxái-tǝn ~ cʼa-cʼáxu-kǝn in [Bleek 1929: 36]. The reduplicated plural form is probably "emphatic" in nature. Although L. Lloyd does not mark glottalized articulation, it is well confirmed by external data, and the "real" form in ǀXam must be reconstructed as sg. *cʼa-xau, pl. *cʼa-xai-tǝn.
Bleek 1956: 213. Plural form: cáxuː-ke ~ caxuː-ŋ. Quoted as cʼaxu, pl. cʼaxu-kǝŋ ~ cʼaxúː-n in [Bleek 1929: 36]; cʼaxu, pl. cʼaxu-ke ~ cʼaxu-kǝn ~ cʼaxuː-ŋ in [Bleek 2000: 19]. Omission of glottalized articulation in [Bleek 1956] seems to be a typographic peculiarity.
Ziervogel 1955: 44. Plural form: saŋ. Quoted as cʼagu, pl. cʼa-ŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 111] (in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 48], it is also added that "one informant indicated cʼaxu as the form used 'long ago'); as cãĩ ~ caxu, pl. cãĩn in [Bleek 1929: 36]; as cáxu ~ cau, pl. cãĩn in [Bleek 1956: 214].
Bleek 1937: 207; Bleek 1956: 220. The double vocalism (not a long vowel!) may reflect a form like coʔo. The plural form is cʼaːxu ~ cʼaːxu-ke. There is some confusion in the vocabularies as to the paradigm: [Bleek 1929: 36] quotes it as co, pl. coo, whereas in [Bleek 1956: 214] we find cʼaxu, pl. cʼaːxu-ke along with singular-only coo. No textual examples are available.
Story 1999: 21. Plural form: cxɔɔ [Story 1999: 30].
Proto-!Wi:*cʼa-xu
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: In the singular number, most languages agree on *cʼaxu ~ *cʼaxau, with the second variant being more marginal and probably secondary if the internal etymology of the word is correct (see below). In the plural number, most Nǀuu dialects as well as ǀǀXegwi agreen on *cʼaxu-ŋ ~ *cʼaxu-m, where the second variant is probably the result of assimilation. Semantics and structure: Based on the general phonotactic laws of !Wi languages, the stem *cʼa-xu may only exist as an original compound of two root morphemes. Consequently, the second morpheme is easily identifiable with Proto-!Wi *xu 'face' (ǀXam xú, etc. [Bleek 1956: 261]); if so, the first may be reflecting the archaic root for 'eye' proper, with 'face' serving as a modifier, or it could have entirely different semantics. If *cʼa-xu originally < "something of the face", then it is important to pay attention to such a form as ǀʼAuni cʼou 'pips, seeds' [Bleek 1956: 220], with further parallels in Taa languages: the metaphoric shift 'seed' > 'eye' is quite common in Africa.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98, 198. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Apparently, the word may be used both as the noun 'fat' and the adjective '(to be) fat'.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested; cf., however, sãːa 'fat' (adjective) ([Bleek 1937: 205]; [Bleek 1956: 162]), etymologically cognate with the words for 'fat' in other !Wi languages (which normally do not distinguish between the noun 'fat' and the adjective).
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (where attested). Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the original shape *sU- (where U is either *u or *o) is hardly under any serious doubt, as is the fact that the original root is encountered with different suffixal extensions in Lower Nǂossob (ǀHaasi cwaː < *sU-a) and Narrow !Wi (*so-eŋ ~ *su-iŋ). Since the suffixal extension -iŋ is rather frequent in this branch, it is reasonable to reconstruct at least one of the original stems as *so-iŋ, capable of either progressive or regressive assimilation (> soeŋ ~ suiŋ).
Bleek 1956: 527, 530. Possibly pluralis tantum (no distinction between sg. and pl. forms is explicitly stated). Transcribed as ɡǀǀɛ́rri ~ ɡǀǀɛ́rri-ya ~ ɡǀǀʌrrɛ by W. Bleek. Slightly dubious. In [Bleek 1929: 38] the primary word for 'feather' is indicated as ǀu = 'hair' q.v., and in [Bleek 1956] there are several examples from W. Bleek and L. Lloyd's records that confirm such usage. All of these examples, however, only refer to the collective form ('feathers' = 'hair coverage on bird'), e. g. toi aː a, ha ǀú ǀu !xwĩ [Lloyd] "this ostrich, its feathers are ugly" [Bleek 1956: 323]. The other item, quoted in [Bleek 1929: 38] as ɡǀǀǝri, is translated there as 'feather on arrow', but in [Bleek 1956] this word can clearly refer to feathers on birds, as well as participate in such compounds as caxáiːtǝn-ka ɡǀǀerre 'eyelashes' and, most, importantly, serve as the derivation basis for the word 'bird' q.v. Unless the real meaning of this word is actually 'wing' rather than 'feather' (also a possibility), we choose to include it as the primary candidate for neutral 'feather' in ǀXam. Other items mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 38] (ǀǀɔ-tǝn 'young feather (quill)', ɡ!àna 'long ostrich feather') are even less eligible.
Sands et al. 2006. This is just a singulative variant of 'hair' q.v. (with the sg. number suffix -si).
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1937: 214], the word ɳ!ɔ̀ma is glossed as 'feather', but in [Bleek 1956: 481], the meaning is narrowed down to 'feather on arrow'. At the same time, in the earlier source [Bleek 1929: 38] we find ɡ!oː 'feather' opposed to !ʼam 'feather on arrow' (the latter word is the same as in ǂKhomani q.v., and ultimately a borrowing from Khoekhoe). With such a scattering of variants, all of which are uncertain and, moreover, lack reliable South Khoisan etymologies, we prefer to leave the slot open.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of attestation in many languages and significant variation within those languages where the word does happen to be attested (either as a borrowing from Khoe or a parallel meaning of the general word for 'hair' q.v.; only ǀXam reveals a separate word, which cannot be reliably projected onto the proto-level).
Bleek 1956: 292; Bleek 1929: 39. Emphatic form: ǀʼí-tǝn ~ ǀʼí-ya (in W. Bleek's records). Attested once in the variant ǀʼéː, within the idiomatic expression bːúː ǀʼéː 'to set on fire' [Bleek 1956: 271], provided this is the same root.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are mostly trivial, although the straightforward reconstruction *ǀʼi is contradicted by transcriptions without the glottal stop in some records of ǀǀXegwi and in ǀHaasi. Since this pattern is non-recurrent, we prefer to view it as an anomaly (either a transcriptional error or a rare positional development, e. g. elision of glottal stop between two "front" segments?).
NUMBER:29
WORD:fish
ǀXam:
Not attested; the word may not have existed at all in the language at the time of its being recorded.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested; the word may not have existed at all in the language at the time of its being recorded.
ǂKhomani:ɳǂēbē #1
Doke 1936: 63. Not attested in Maingard's data. The word itself is dubious; very few South Khoisan languages show any name for 'fish' at all, and, besides, there is no certainty in that the word denotes 'fish' in general and not some specific sort of fish (possibly borrowed from an unknown source).
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of attestation. Depending on the original home area of Proto-!Wi speakers, the word may not have existed in the language at all.
Bleek 1956: 560, 573, 632. Transcribed as ǀǀau ~ ǀǀaːuː ~ ǀǀʰau ~ ǀǀʰou ~ ǀǀxau by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀǀʰou ~ ǀǀxau in [Bleek 1929: 40]. The abundance of variants, mostly differentiated by means of the click efflux, alongside the suggested, but not very probable, polysemy 'fly / throw up / above, over, up, upon, on / to come to' in [Bleek 1956: 560], suggests that we may be dealing with several mixed-up, phonetically and semantically similar, but ultimately different stems in ǀXam. It is hardly possible to disentangle them without external comparison.
Distribution: Preserved in Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni. This distribution is technically sufficient to reliably project the word onto the Proto-!Wi level, but one must also keep in mind the attestation of tense contacts between the speakers of those two languages in the early 20th century, i. e. the ǀʼAuni entry could really be a borrowing from Nǀuu, in which case ǀXam-ǀǀNg!ke *ǀǀ(x)au would turn out to be a better candidate for proto-status. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Nǀuu and ǀʼAuni are trivial (pharyngealization is never marked by D. Bleek for ǀʼAuni), although this may reflect genetic relationship as well as borrowing in this particular case.
Bleek 1956: 612, 617. Quoted as ɳǀǀaː ~ ɳǀǀaː-xu in [Bleek 1929: 40]. Plural form: ɳǀǀaː-xu-ke [Bleek 2000: 19]. The morphologically complex variant ɳǀǀaː-xu (where -xu is a frequent nominal suffix, cf. 'eye') is more frequent, according to D. Bleek.
Ziervogel 1955: 41. Distinct from ǀalagu 'leg' [Ziervogel 1955: 38]; tʰi 'leg' [Ziervogel 1955: 40] (the latter word's meaning would rather seem to be 'thigh', as glossed in [Bleek 1956: 196]). Quoted as ǀkʼe in [Bleek 1929: 40] and as ǀxʼe in [Bleek 1956: 338].
Story 1999: 21, 30. The first morpheme (n=) is the 1st p. possessive prefix. Plural form: ka=ŋ=!a-ai.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible. ǀXam *ɳ!oa and "old Nǀuu" *ɳǀǀa (in D. Bleek's attestation) may be etymologically compared with each other, as well as with ǀǀKxau ɲa-xu-ŋ ~ ɲa-xu-si 'leg' [Bleek 1956: 144], but are not easily traceable to a higher level. Proto-Lower Nǂossob *!xʼai ~ *!ʰai also has no etymology outside of that particular branch. Overall, the etymon is almost surprisingly unstable (particularly when compared to 'hand' q.v.).
Bleek 1956: 413, 414. Polysemy: 'to be full / satisfied'. Transcribed by W. Bleek as !áúíŋ. This seems to be an intransitive or adjectival derivate from !kʼã̀ũ̀ ~ !áúŋ-a 'to fill' [Bleek 1956: 411, 415]; the form !auŋ-a is also glossed as 'full' in [Bleek 1929: 41]. Occasional transcription of this root with a velar ejective click efflux is important in that it may reflect uvular articulation (earlier *!qãũ or *!qʼãũ).
Sands et al. 2006. Secondary synonym: ǂʼun-a (Western dialect) ~ ǂʼuŋ-a (Eastern dialect). This word, however, relates rather to the meaning 'full (of stomach), satiated'.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀxʼǝn-si2
Bleek 1937: 217; Bleek 1956: 605 (erroneously listed as a form from "SV", Masarwa). Cf. also ǀǀãũ 'to fill' ([Bleek 1937: 215]; [Bleek 1956: 561]), which may be somehow related here, since most Peripheral Khoisan languages do not distinguish lexically between 'fill' and 'full'. (Discrepancies in the click efflux could indicate poor quality of transcription).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!qauŋ #
Distribution: Well attested in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster; in most other languages, the equivalent for 'full' simply remains unknown. Replacements: The relation of ǀXam-Nǀuu *!qauŋ to ǀʼAuni ǀǀxʼǝn-si 'full', ǀǀãũ 'to fill' remains unclear; most probably, they are not connected, since Nǀuu ! does not properly correspond to ǀʼAuni ǀǀ. If the ǀʼAuni forms are not related, they have no separate etymology and could also lay claim to reflecting the Proto-!Wi equivalent for 'full', but this is less probable than in the case of the ǀXam-Nǀuu match (more reliable and formally reconstructible to a deeper time level). Reconstruction shape: The original verbal root 'to fill', as attested in ǀXam, calls for the reconstruction *!qauŋ; the adjectival form, common to both ǀXam and Nǀuu, was most likely *!qauŋ-ya, with occasional contraction and reduction in ǀXam (> *!qauiŋ).
Bleek 1956: 1. Transcribed as á by W. Bleek; quoted as aː in [Bleek 1929: 42]. The latter source also lists ǀaː as a synonym, but in [Bleek 1956: 293] the word is glossed as 'to leave, let alone, give, wait, stay', and textual examples do not indicate any possibility of this lexeme representing the default verb of giving in ǀXam.
Bleek 1956: 1; Bleek 1929: 42. The latter source also gives the synonym saː for the same meaning, but in [Bleek 1956] saː is more frequently defined as 'to bring, fetch' (thus, the example ha saː ke !xe e ɳǀa in [Bleek 2000: 22] is "she brings me a cloth for the head" rather than "she gives me..."), which agrees well with the internal etymologization of this stem as a morphological variant of si ~ sa 'to come' q.v.
Miller et al. 2009: 156. Two variants, a and ã, are listed in [Sands et al. 2006]. The latter list also yields a secondary synonym: cʼaː (Western dialect) ~ ʒʼaː (Eastern dialect) 'to give, share, distribute, portion out'.
Ziervogel 1955: 36; Bleek 1929: 42; Bleek 1956: 161. Quoted as sa in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115], with a contracted variant s- in such phrases as in za s-e "I will give" [ibid.]. In [Bleek 1929: 42], ǀǀe is listed as a synonym (presumably incorrectly, since the same word is listed with the semantics 'hold, carry' in [Bleek 1956: 566]).
Bleek 1956: 1. In [Bleek 1937: 201], the word is glossed as áke, but the textual example in [Bleek 1956: 1] segments this into the verb a and the verbal particle ke: ɳǀe ǀǀàm a ke "quickly give me". Earlier records yield two entirely different quasi-synonyms for 'give': ǀǀa and tão [Bleek 1929: 42]. Of these, the former is probably the same as the verb 'to go, move' and should be disqualified; the second is, however, confirmed as 'give' in [Bleek 1937: 206] and in [Bleek 1956: 193], where it is supported with the text example tão ki ʘwe "give me meat". Since this word has no clear-cut etymological connections, we do not include it as a synonym, but the overall situation is far from clear.
Distribution: Well reconstructible for Proto-ǀXam-Nǀuu; also probably attested in ǀʼAuni, which makes it the optimal candidate for Proto-!Wi 'to give'. Replacements: (a) ǀǀXegwi sa 'to give' is etymologically equivalent to ǀǀNg!ke sa 'to bring, fetch, give' (see notes on ǀǀNg!ke), and it may be reasonably argued that we are dealing here with the common semantic shift {'to bring' > 'to give'}; the verb 'to bring', in its turn, is most likely a causative function of *sa ~ *si 'to come' q.v.; (b) ǀʼAuni ɳǀa 'give' is most frequently (although not always) observed in imperative forms, and etymologically corresponds to ǀXam ɳǀa 'let, give' [Bleek 1956: 341] (usually also imperative). Distribution of the various functions of this root in !Wi indicates that the imperative function ('let!', 'give!') is the one to be projected onto the proto-level with the most certainty. If it is indeed used in an indicative meaning in any dialect, such usage is most likely secondary. Reconstruction shape: The root is usually encountered in the simple variant *a or with nasalization (*ã < *a-ã through contraction with a suffix?). An additional problem arises with ǀHaasi i. This monovocalic stem could be legitimately compared with Proto-!Wi *a, since vocalic gradation in basic verbal roots is a commonality in this group - one could, in fact, think of reconstructing Proto-!Wi *a ~ *i 'to give', completely analoguous to *sa ~ *si 'to come', etc. Nevertheless, to answer this question with more certainty, one would need a more thorough study of !Wi verbal morphophonology.
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1956: 341, 348. Not attested at all in [Bleek 1929], but textual examples in the indicative or imperative meaning are actually more frequent for this verb in [Bleek 1956] than for a.
Bleek 1956: 7. Quoted as aː-kǝn in [Bleek 1929: 43]. The word is glossed as 'to be nice / good / comfortable / handsome / beautiful / to do nicely, well' in [Bleek 1956], but no definitive textual contexts are given (such as antonymous expressions like 'good and bad', etc.) to determine if it is this word or tːwã́ĩ́ that is the default ǀXam equivalent for 'good' as such. It remains only to treat both items as synonyms.
Bleek 1956: 92. Transcribed as kiai ~ kiaiˤ, which represents palatalized articulation of the original consonant. This word is not mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 43], which, instead, quotes an alternate lexical item: !ʼʰãĩya, itself not confirmed in [Bleek 1956]. We choose the entry from the more reliable source (and one that is also better backed up by external parallels).
ǂKhomani:xʼām-ɕé #-1
Doke 1936: 77. Not attested in Maingard's data. The word is somewhat dubious. It is very likely a borrowing from Khoekhoe, where the actual meaning is 'right; true' (Nama am, !Ora xʼam); due to scarceness of data, there is no way to ascertain whether the correct meaning for ǂKhomani is indeed 'good' (= 'positive') or 'right, true, correct'. In any case, we mark the form with a negative cognation index, covering both possibilities (suitable meaning, but in a borrowed form; or lack of the appropriate item as such).
Sands et al. 2006. The form is not quite clear morphologically; the second syllable is probably suffixal. Said of people.
ǀǀXegwi:luga-ge #-1
Ziervogel 1955: 62. Identified by Ziervogel as a Bantuism (Swahili lunga, etc.). However, it is not clear if this was really the primary ǀǀXegwi equivalent for 'good' (only encountered once in texts).
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of data as well as a serious tendency of this word to be borrowed from external sources.
Bleek 1956: 87. Emphatic form: kérru-kǝn. Quoted as kǝruwa (a different morphological variant) in [Bleek 1929: 44]. In known textual examples, applied mostly to vegetation; glossed also in the nominal meaning 'grass, foliage, vegetation'. This is more likely to be the default ǀXam word for 'green' than ǀaːiːn (L. Lloyd), ǀaːiːn ~ ǀaːiːn-ya (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 297], since the latter is glossed as 'to be green, yellow, shining' and applied to all sorts of "shining" objects, including even 'sky' (cf. ǀǀõiŋyaŋ kwerre ɡ!waxukǝn ǀǀʰou ǀaːiːn "the sun cooled, the sky waxed green" [ibid.] - a very dubious translation).
ǀǀNg!ke:ǀxʼre2
Bleek 1956: 336; Bleek 1929: 44; Bleek 2000: 26. This is the only equivalent for 'green' attested in all of the sources on ǀǀNg!ke, including a (rather pointless) textual example (ha ka ǀxʼre "it is green" [Bleek 2000: 26]). The phonetic structure of ǀxʼre is somewhat atypical for ǀǀNg!ke and Khoisan languages in general; the obvious explanation is reduction from an earlier *ǀxʼVre (cf. a similar situation in the case of 'red' q.v.). One secondary synonym is ǀarowa ([Bleek 1929: 44]; [Bleek 1956: 302]), with no textual examples at all.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǀǀʼʰao-a-1
Sands et al. 2006. Most likely, a recent borrowing from Khoekhoe (cf. Nama ǀǀʰao 'to turn green; to grow').
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:ǀǀau-1
Story 1999: 22. Most probably, a Khoekhoe borrowing (see notes on Nǀuu).
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of data; additionally, many of the forms that are actually attested turn out to be borrowings.
Bleek 1956: 314, 323. Polysemy: 'hair / feathers / skin of insect'. Transcribed as ǀú ~ ǀú-ki ~ ǀú-kǝn, emphatic form ǀú-ka-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀɯ in [Bleek 1929: 45]. Although the word is more frequently transcribed as ǀu than ǀʰu, external connections of the word clearly indicate that ǀʰu, with aspiration, is the more archaic variant of the two.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Aspiration of the click is indicated in most data sources and may be reliably projected onto the proto-level. Vowel lowering in Lower Nǂossob languages (*ǀʰu > *ǀʰo) is analoguous to several similar cases (cf., e.g., 'dog') and is probably regular.
Bleek 1956: 336; Bleek 1929: 45. Plural form: ǀxʼá-ǀxʼa (with reduplication). Polysemy: 'hand / finger / shoot (of plants) / string' (meanings 'arm' and 'foreleg' are also listed, but this is very dubious).
Ziervogel 1955: 44. Plural form: ǀxʼa-ŋ. Quoted as qʰiː, phonetically [qʰǝiː] in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]. It should be noted that the alleged suppletivism of the stem is not reflected in D. Bleek's data: the singular form is listed as ǀkʼa in [Bleek 1929: 45] and as ǀxʼa in [Bleek 1956: 336] (a ǀxʼa is translated there as "thy hand", not "thy hands").
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1929: 45; Bleek 1956: 336. Polysemy: 'hand / arm / foreleg / wing'. In the specific meaning 'hand', a compound form is also quoted: ǀxʼa ɳǀa, literally 'arm-head'.
Story 1999: 22. The morpheme n= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix. The alternate listed variant kʼaŋ=kʼu=ǀxaŋ likely represents the plural form (with the plurality prefix kʼu=). Cf. n=ǀã 'arm' [Story 1999: 21] (n= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix).
Proto-!Wi:*ǀxʼa
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages with the possible exception of ǀǀXegwi. Replacements: The form *qʰi in ǀǀXegwi is phonetically incompatible with Proto-!Wi *ǀxʼa; its origins are currently unknown. However, data collected by D. Bleek indicate that the replacement in ǀǀXegwi may have been quite recent and valid only for certain subdialects. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are trivial. Semantics and structure: In Lower Nǂossob, the word is regularly encountered with an additional nasal suffix (*ǀxʼa-ŋ); comparative ǀǀXegwi data shows that this may have been a fossilized plural marker.
Bleek 1956: 342. Plural form: ɳǀãː ~ ɳǀãŋ. Transcribed by W. Bleek as ɳǀaː, emphatic and plural forms ɳǀaŋ ~ ɳǀaːŋ ~ ɳǀáŋŋan. Quoted as ɳǀaː in [Bleek 1929: 46].
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1929: 46; Bleek 1956: 342. The situation is complex, since another word for 'head' is xːuu [Bleek 1937: 208], quoted as xú ~ xúu in [Bleek 1956: 261]. Although it continues the common !Wi root *xu 'face' (see the comparative evidence in [Bleek 1956: 261]), in several attested ǀʼAuni examples the meaning is clearly 'head', not 'face', cf.: ti tani ke xú "carry on the head" (hardly "on the face"!). D. Bleek, therefore, suggests that ɳǀaː is, in fact, a Nǀuu/ǂKhomani word in ǀʼAuni, along the same lines as in her argument for 'mouth' q.v. The situation here is, however, different from 'mouth', because: (a) only ɳǀaː and not xú is found in the meaning 'head' in Bleek's early records, published in [Bleek 1929]; (b) unlike the words for 'mouth', the word ɳǀaː 'head' is pan-Southern Khoisan, and its re-introduction into ǀʼAuni from ǂKhomani is a rather complex scenario. It would probably be easier to simply think of the situation in terms of "transit synonymy": xu 'face' gradually replacing the original ɳǀaː 'head'. As is common in such cases, we list both synonyms.
Story 1999: 22. The morpheme ŋ= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǀa
Distribution: Preserved throughout "Narrow !Wi"; in Lower Nǂossob, possibly replaced either already at the proto-level or in individual dialects. Replacements: In either Proto-Lower Nǂossob or a sub-section of ǀHaasi-ǀʼAuni dialects, replaced with *xu, originally 'face' (cf. ǀXam xú 'face' [Bleek 1956: 261], etc.); the semantic shift {'face' > 'head'} looks quite reasonable. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are trivial. Semantics and structure: The original paradigm is reconstructible as sg. *ɳǀa, pl. *ɳǀa-ŋ.
Bleek 1956: 206, 239, 240. Transcribed as tːú ~ tːúi ~ tuːi ~ tːóa by W. Bleek. Quoted as tuː ~ tuːi ~ tum in [Bleek 1929: 46]. All forms traceable back to the stem *tu; vocalic variation is likely due to merger with various class suffixes, as in most simple verbal stems.
Ziervogel 1955: 36, 40, 52. The short stem, according to ZIervogel, is only used in the future tense. Past tense stem: tu-wa; present tense stem is tu-bi. Imperative forms glossed as to (sg.), to-u (pl.) [Ziervogel 1955: 48]. Cf.: ʔa ʔa tuʔbi ʔa-ʔe "do you not hear" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115]. Quoted as tuːi ~ taːã in [Bleek 1929: 46], but only as tuːi in [Bleek 1956: 240].
Bleek 1937: 207; Bleek 1956: 239, 240. The earlier source lists this word as taːã ~ taːa [Bleek 1929: 46]; this either reflects a contraction with a class marker or particle or, more likely, represents a different root (cf. also tiãn 'to feel' [Bleek 1937: 206]).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*tu
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau tú, Seroa tu [Bleek 1956: 239]. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and unequivocally point to *tu (with predictable palatalization of the initial dental consonant in most dialectal varieties of Nǀuu).
Bleek 1937: 208; Bleek 1956: 271. Quoted as ǀʼɛː in [Bleek 1929: 46], but that source has an additional synonym in the same meaning: ǂkʼa, not confirmed in later sources (possibly = ǂan 'chest' q.v.?).
Story 1999: 22. Initial n= is probably the 1st person possessive prefix; the second click-containing morpheme -ɡǀe is unclear.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀe ~ *ǀʼe
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for ǀǀXegwi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǀae ~ ǀai-si, ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀʼɛ̃ː id. [Bleek 1956: 271, 296]. Replacements: In ǀǀXegwi, the old word seems to have been replaced with a Bantu borrowing. Reconstruction shape: The stem shows a somewhat chaotic distribution of zero (velar) click efflux vs. glottalized efflux in daughter languages (usually glottalized in ǀXam and ǀʼAuni, non-glottalized in Nǀuu and ǀHaasi). Ignoring this glottalization is impossible, since it shows up in too many sources; the situation possibly reflects glottalized vocal articulation (i. e. *ǀeʔe), as in several other such cases, but this solution is not conclusive.
Bleek 1956: 567, 574. Plural form: ǀǀʰe-ǀǀʰẽi ~ ǀǀʰẽ́i-ǀǀʰẽ́i ~ ǀǀé-ǀǀéi ~ ǀǀẽ́i-ǀǀẽ́i (with reduplication). Transcribed as ǀǀɛ̃:, plural (emphatic?) ǀǀẽi-ǀǀẽ́i-yaŋ by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀǀẽ́ĩ́, pl. ǀǀẽ́ĩ́-ǀǀẽ́ĩ́ in [Bleek 1929: 47]. Of note is the transcription's fluctuation between the aspirated and the zero efflux, possibly indicative of a "non-trivial" type of articulation not detected properly by W. Bleek and L. Lloyd. None of the materials distinguish this word from 'tooth' q.v., although external data very clearly speak in favour of their separate origin.
Bleek 2000: 18. Plural form: ǀǀãĩŋ ~ ǀǀãĩŋ-sa. In [Bleek 1956: 568] the word is confused with 'tooth' q.v., and most textual examples are on 'tooth', although the plural variant ǀǀẽĩŋsa ~ ǀǀãĩŋ for 'horn' is also mentioned. Quoted as ǀǀẽĩ, pl. ǀǀẽĩn-sa in [Bleek 1929: 47].
Bleek 1937: 216; Bleek 1956: 568. Meaning glossed as plural: 'horns'.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀẽĩ
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (although see further on the somewhat divergent form in modern Nǀuu). Reconstruction shape: Most of the sources agree on the lateral click influx, zero (velar) accompaniment, and a front root vowel for the original protoform. The only uncomfortable exception is the form attested in Modern Nǀuu (ǀǀqʰoe-), which suggests a uvular aspirated efflux instead, as well as a labial component in the root vocalism. These correlations are quite irregular and find no explanation; however, due to lack of alternate etymologies, some degree of phonetic similarity, and the fact that uvular accompaniments had not been generally recognized by researchers prior to the modern era, we tentatively mark the form as an etymological cognate, pending further research on the issue. Additionally, the root is almost never encountered without nasalization, which may be part of the root or represent fusion with an old nasal class marker (< *ǀǀe-iŋ ?).
Bleek 1956: 140. Emphatic form: ŋ-ŋ. Also attested in a rare phonetic variant n, as well as m before the following labials (by assimilation). Possessive forms, according to W. Bleek, include the variants ŋ ~ ŋ-ka ~ ŋ-ta ~ ŋ-ga. Both W. Bleek and L. Lloyd also indicate the existence of a velar stem ka ~ ke ~ ki [Bleek 1956: 74, 85, 91], rarely, if ever, found in as the subject of the main clause and mostly limited to various bound usage in subordinate clauses. Available data are too ambiguous, however, to allow us to treat it as a regular "indirect stem-type" synonym.
Bleek 1956: 140; Bleek 1929: 49; Bleek 2000: 21. D. Bleek notes that both variants are freely interchangeable. The rare positional variant m (before words starting with a labial consonant) is mentioned in [Bleek 1956: 132] and [Bleek 1929: 49]. Note also a special dative form ke, e. g. ha saː ke !xe e ɳǀa "she gives me a cloth for the head" [Bleek 2000: 22].
Maingard 1937: 244. All four variants are mentioned as representing the subject form; in the object position only ŋ is encountered. Transcribed as na ~ ɲa in [Doke 1936: 63]; both variants, as subject pronouns, are also said to be in free variation.
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Cf. also the emphatic (absolute) form: ʔn-ʔe ~ ʔin-ʔe; the object form ʔne ~ ʔŋe; the possessive form ŋe ~ ŋ [Ziervogel 1955: 45-47]. The absolute form is quoted as ʔiŋ-ʔe ~ iŋ-ʔe in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108]. Quoted as ŋ ~ aŋ ~ am in [Bleek 1929: 49]; as am ~ aŋ ~ n ~ ŋ in [Bleek 1956: 9, 10, 141] (the variant am is an assimilated form, used before words beginning with labials).
Bleek 1937: 197; Bleek 1956: 132, 141, 142. The variant m is the result of samdhi, encountered only before words beginning with labial consonants. Quoted as ŋ ~ ŋ-ŋ in [Bleek 1929: 49]. Possessive forms, as per [Bleek 1937: 197], include: n ~ n-ka ~ n-ga ~ m; there may also be a special dative form ki 'to me'.
Story 1999: 31. Cf. also the emphatic forms: gʸà=ŋa ~ gʸa=ŋ ~ ka=ŋ (the last form is not marked as "emphatic" by Story, but also represents a contraction with a prefix).
Proto-!Wi:*ŋ
Distribution: Preserved in all modern languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ŋ ~ n, ǀǀKuǀǀe ŋ, Seroa ʔn, G!ãn!e n ~ ŋ [Bleek 1956: 141]. Reconstruction shape: The primary and most common form of the root is that of a syllabic velar nasal. Everything else is the result of contextual assimilations or combinations with various emphatic particles.
Bleek 1956: 293, 315. Transcribed by W. Bleek as ǀá ~ ǀíː. Vocalic variation is typical of most simple verbal stems and is explained through merger with various class markers. Not to be confused with ǀʼa 'to die' q.v.: despite superficial similarity, the two stems are very consistently distinguished both in W. Bleek's and L. Lloyd's records through their effluxes (glottal stop for 'die', zero or aspiration for 'kill'). Quoted as ǀiː ~ ǀaː ~ ǀʼaː in [Bleek 1929: 50] (where this exact confusion has actually taken place).
Bleek 1956: 293, 313, 315. Forms quoted as ǀʰiː 'to kill' : ǀʰaː 'killed' in [Bleek 2000: 24], although text examples in [Bleek 1956] show that the vocalic gradation is dependent not on tense or voice, but, most likely, on class characteristics of the accompanying nouns. Quoted as ǀiː ~ ǀaː ~ ǀʼaː in [Bleek 1929: 50] (where, as in ǀXam, the word has been confused with the entirely different stem ǀʼa 'to die' q.v.).
Ziervogel 1955: 51. The simple stem is said to function as the future tense. Present tense stem is ƛiŋ-we; past tense stem is ƛiŋ-wa. Somewhat dubious. The meaning on p. 51 is glossed as 'hit, strike', but cf. on p. 62: ʔi ƛeŋ-we ǀʰwi "we kill a bird", ʔi ƛeŋ ǀʰuriŋ "we kill a spur-winged goose". The same word is quoted as ƛʼeuŋ 'to hit' in [[Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 100].
Distribution: Found only in the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster. Replacements: (a) ǀǀXegwi ƛiŋ could reflect something like Proto-!Wi *ǂiŋ or *ǂeŋ. However, the word has no external parallels, and its original meaning, as can be seen from attested examples, is clearly 'to hit' rather than 'to kill'; (b) ǀHaasi !au 'to kill' = ǀʼAuni !au 'to beat; to knock down' [Bleek 1956: 411]; in this case, the local replacement {'to beat' > 'to kill'} is more than evident. It is important to note that ǀXam-Nǀuu *ǀʰa is the only etymon in the whole group whose semantics is strictly confined to 'to kill', which is an additional argument for regarding it as a better candidate for Proto-!Wi status. Reconstruction shape: Modern Nǀuu shows that the root has to be reconstructed with an aspirated efflux. Original vocalism fluctuates between *a and *i, reflecting an obscure morphological pattern.
Bleek 1956: 349. Plural form: ɳǀu-ɳǀua-dːe ~ ɳǀũ-ɳǀũa-dːe. Transcribed as ɳǀo̯á-ɳǀo̯aː-déyakǝn (pl. form) by W. Bleek. Quoted as ɳǀɔaŋ in [Bleek 1929: 50].
Bleek 1937: 217. Quoted as ǀǀoiǀǀoi in [Bleek 1929: 50]. In [Bleek 1956: 584], this form, quoted as ǀǀweː-ǀǀwe, is marked as the (reduplicated) plural correlate to the singular ǀǀoe. This would seem logical, but, for some reason, only the reduplicated form is attested in [Bleek 1937], glossed as singular 'knee'.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǀu-aŋ ~ *ɳǀo-aŋ
Distribution: Attested in most varieties of "Narrow !Wi". Cf. also Seroa gno-ma-teŋ 'knee' [Bleek 1956: 47], where g- transcribes a click. Replacements: "Narrow !Wi" *ɳǀu-aŋ is opposed to ǀʼAuni (Lower Nǂossob) *ǀǀoe ~ *ǀǀõẽ. There are two reasons why the !Wi equivalent is preferable: (a) purely technical (the word is reconstructible to a much higher chronological level); (b) more importantly, ǀʼAuni ǀǀoe coincides segmentally with the basic Central Khoisan equivalent for 'knee', and, although this does not per se prove borrowing, makes it quite probable. Reconstruction shape: Dental click with nasal efflux is regularly reflected in all daughter languages, as is the labial vowel (although its exact quality is hard to determine). The segment -aŋ in ǀXam and the corresponding nasalization of the vowel in Nǀuu is most likely of suffixal origin, since in ǀǀXegwi the same root is encountered with a different suffixal extension: *ɳǀu-ma ~ *ɳǀo-ma.
Bleek 1956: 643. Transcribed as ǂʼeńn ~ ǂʼenńa by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǂʼen ~ ǂʼen-a in [Bleek 1929: 51]. The connection between these forms and ǂʼẽː ~ ǂʼĩː 'to think, remember' [Bleek 1956: 642, 652] is unclear, as is their connection to phonetically similar Central Khoisan forms with the same meaning (cf., for example, Nama ǂʼan 'to know', ǂʼãĩ 'to think'); nevertheless, due to external parallels within !Kwi itself, we do not count this as a borrowing (at least, not a recent one). In [Bleek 1929: 51] another stem, ǀǀwaka, is listed as synonymous, but in [Bleek 1956: 596] it is glossed as 'to understand, be wise, clever, cunning', and textual examples confirm that the word is unlikely to have simply meant 'to know'.
Bleek 1937: 217, 218; Bleek 1956: 601, 631. It is not quite clear if these two forms are really phonetic/morphological variants or represent different roots.
Distribution: An isogloss between ǀʼAuni and Nǀuu. Replacements: (a) In ǀXam, there is some evidence for a secondary merger between 'to think' and 'to know': ǀXam ǂʼeńńː 'to know' = ǀǀNg!ke ǂẽ 'to think' [Bleek 1956: 642], ǂKhomani ǂʼĩ 'to think, thoughts' [Maingard 1937: 257]. It is not clear if, on the next chronological level, this word had been borrowed from Central Khoisan *ǂʼan 'to know; to think' or not, but, in any case, of all the languages that share this form, it is only ǀXam for which the semantics of 'to know' has been attested; (b) ǀǀXegwi ci- has no etymology whatsoever; (c) ǀHaasi ǀüma has a strong parallel outside !Wi in !Xóõ ɡǀûmã 'to know' (Taa branch of !Wi-Taa). Under different circumstances, this fact would have made the ǀHaasi form an optimal candidate for Proto-!Wi 'to know' (external comparison argument). However, this would mean that the Nǀuu-ǀʼAuni isogloss has to be definitively judged as either a homoplasy or a result of borrowing (presumably, from Nǀuu into ǀʼAuni). In order to make that judgement, one has also to be sure that the ǀHaasi-!Xóõ connection might not be due to historical contact (given the geographical location of !Xóõ and Lower Nǂossob languages, this may not be excluded). Consequently, for the present we prefer to formally regard the ǀHaasi form as an innovation, not an archaism, since its internal distribution is weak compared to Nǀuu-ǀʼAuni *ǀǀxae. Reconstruction shape: We tentatively project the Nǀuu shape of the form onto the proto-level, although vocalic correspondences between ǀʼAuni and Nǀuu require further study.
NUMBER:46
WORD:leaf
ǀXam:
Not attested. The form ɡǀuḿmː in [Bleek 1956: 283] is tentatively glossed as 'leaf (?), stick (?)', based on a context from L. Lloyd's records in which the exact meaning is impossible to determine properly. Words with the meaning 'leaf', as such, are extremely met in South Khoisan languages as a whole.
ǀǀNg!ke:xerroː1
Bleek 1956: 259. Quoted as xero in [Bleek 1929: 52]. In the former source the meaning is glossed as 'leaves, foliage' (ɡʘo kan xerroː "the tree's leaves").
ǂKhomani:kānɾū2
Doke 1936: 72. Not attested in Maingard's data. An alternate, phonetically similar, but probably etymologically incompatible form, also glossed as 'leaf', is kāŋkāˤmū-sí ~ kã̄kã̄ˤmū-sí [Doke 1936: 69, 75]. Judging by the structure of the latter word, it is almost certainly a borrowing, but the source is unclear. The form kānɾū is also phonetically questionable (the cluster -nɾ- is unique for this entry and should indicate a non-!Kwi origin).
Nǀuu:blaːr-si-1
Sands et al. 2007: 60. A transparent borrowing from Afrikaans blaar.
ǀǀXegwi:li=kʰasi-zi-1
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 112. Borrowed from Swazi li=kʰasi id. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible. Due to areal conditions, the word 'leaf' consistently shows highly restricted usage and is in most cases /re/introduced as a borrowing.
Bleek 1956: 185, 196, 198. Transcribed as tá ~ taː ~ tːɛ̃ː ~ tẽː ~ teːŋ ~ teːn by W. Bleek. Quoted as taː ~ teːn ~ tiŋ in [Bleek 1929: 53]. Polysemy: 'to lie / to lie down'; also attested in causative meanings ('to lay (down)'). Vocalic variability is typical of verbal roots with short stems and probably reflects mergers with various class markers, although it is not clear which of the variants should be considered closer to the "pure" root (probably *ta, but it is also possible to denote the root as a monoconsonantal *t-). On the possible synonym ǀʼũːŋ see under 'sleep'.
Bleek 1956: 91, 202. Quoted as tu ~ tiä ~ kiä ~ keːŋ in [Bleek 1929: 53]. The form tieŋ is said to represent "past tense" in [Bleek 1956: 202], but its phonetic variant kieŋ [Bleek 1956: 91] ~ keːŋ [Bleek 1956: 87] is, however, said to be employed "after verbal particles". In [Bleek 2000: 18] it is explicitly acknowledged that tiä and kiä represent alternative pronunciations, which should be interpreted as one more example of a typologically frequent (for Khoisan languages) palatal articulation of t- before front vowels. The verb is frequently translated as 'sleep' in Bleek's examples, but 'lie' is almost certainly the primary meaning; for discussion, see 'sleep'.
Sands et al. 2007: 61. Meaning glossed as 'lie (down)'.
ǀǀXegwi:ǀaː #2
Bleek 1929: 53; Bleek 1956: 294. The latter source gives a textual example: haŋ ǀaː, ha ʘueŋ "she lies, she sleeps". The former source quotes the word !xwaː as a synonym, but its existence is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956]. Unfortunately, the word "to lie" is not attested properly in more reliable sources. In [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99], the phrase iŋ-ʘiɲe is translated as "I lie down", but the usual meaning of the underlying verb, both in ǀǀXegwi and in related languages, is 'to sleep' q.v.; without additional confirmation, we would rather regard this as a potential mistranslation and leave the slot empty. In [Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 47], the form kala is adduced with the meaning 'lie down' (and explained as a potential borrowing from giTonga kʰala 'stay, sit'), but it is not clear whether it also has the required static semantics in ǀǀXegwi.
Bleek 1937: 207. Meaning glossed as 'down, to lie down, come down'; cf. also tũa 'to lie curled up' and the derived stem tõã-a 'to lay down, to bury' [ibid.]. In [Bleek 1929: 53], the meaning 'to lie down' is glossed as tũ ~ toa. Textual examples show both a dynamic and a static meaning for the verb: cf. kʰai tòa "water comes down" vs. o toa ki ɡ!ã "(he) lies on the ground" [Bleek 1956: 206]. Cf. also: ǂɔ̃ː di se tũa "the dog lies curled up" (maybe just "lies" as such?) [Bleek 1956: 240]. There is also a different stem, ɡǀò ([Bleek 1937: 209], [Bleek 1956: 280]), glossed only as 'to lie down', and attested only in examples with "dynamic" semantics.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ta
Distribution: Preserved everywhere, with the possible exception of ǀǀXegwi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau da ~ ta 'to lie' [Bleek 1956: 19, 185]. Replacements: The situation with ǀǀXegwi remains unclear; in any case, the hypothetical ǀaː 'to lie' has no reliable external etymology. Reconstruction shape: The most frequent variant is *ta, with the first consonant regularly palatalized in Nǀuu. The variants *teŋ (< *ta-iŋ?) in ǀXam, *tu in ǂKhomani, and *toa in ǀʼAuni should be regarded as morphological variants.
Sands et al. 2006. The two latter forms are said to represent the Eastern dialect.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳǀǀaN
Distribution: Preserved in all languages where attested. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ŋaŋa [Bleek 1956: 143] with regular elision of the click influx. Reconstruction shape: Labialization in ǀXam seems to be secondary, as in multiple similar cases. A nasal is always present in the stem coda, but the variants fluctuate rather chaotically between *-aŋ, *-an, and *-ain; the optimal scenario for working out this problem has not yet been found, but in any case, the nasal seems to be an inherent part of the root rather than a suffixal addition.
Bleek 1956: 501. Polysemy: 'tall / long / high'. Plural form: !xó-!xó-ka (with reduplication). Transcribed as !xoːwa, pl. !xo-!xó-ka ~ !xó-!xó-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as !xoːwa in [Bleek 1929: 55]. This adjectival stem is clearly derived from !xoː 'to grow up, climb up; make upright, make tall' [Bleek 1956: 500].
Bleek 1956: 267; Bleek 1929: 55; Bleek 2000: 23. Applied to objects (ha !u ǀʼaː "his (ostrich's) neck is long") as well as time periods (ɡǀǀã ǀʼaː "the night is long").
Bleek 1937: 208; Bleek 1956: 270. Meaning glossed as 'big, long, tall', although 'big' is an incorrect addition (see notes on 'big' for more details). Entirely different equivalent for 'long' found in [Bleek 1929: 55]: xaras (not confirmed by later research or external comparison).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀʼã
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀXam. Replacements: In ǀXam, the only word glossed with the meaning 'long' is !xóː-wa, related to ǀǀNg!ke !xoːwa 'tall, big' [Bleek 1956: 501] = Nǀuː !xoː id. (see under 'big'). This allows to tentatively suggest a semantic shift {'big' > 'long'}, although much depends on the degree of accuracy in the glossing of ǀXam data. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are relatively straightforward. Vowel nasalization seems to be innate in the root.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ɳʘu-
Distribution: Preserved in all languages where attested. Reconstruction shape: Initial labial click with nasal accompaniment is attested in all languages and automatically projected onto the proto-level. Vocalism is harder to reconstruct; most dialects agree on a labial vowel, but ǀǀXegwi does not, and it is not excluded that an assimilative process was at work in at least some of these dialects. Still, we provisionally follow the "majority rule". Semantics and structure: For the ǀXam-Nǀuu cluster, the word is reconstructible as the complex stem *ɳʘu-iŋ, with a productive nominal suffix (of class?).
NUMBER:51
WORD:man
ǀXam:!wi=gwaiː1
Bleek 1956: 447, 466. Transcribed as !ü go̯áːi by W. Bleek (for more on the shorter variant !u ~ !ü see under 'person'). Quoted as !wi=gwai in [Bleek 1929: 56]. The noun !wi by itself normally means 'person' without specification of gender (q.v.). The compound form !wi=gwaiː literally translates as 'person-male', where gwaiː = 'male' (of human beings as well as animals) [Bleek 1956: 52]. It is unclear how frequent this compound was in actual speech, but there are some neutral contexts in L. Lloyd's records suggesting that it could have indeed been the default designation for 'man' as opposed to 'woman' in the singular number. In the plural number, the usual designation for 'men' is suppletive: tːú-kǝn (Lloyd), tú-kǝn (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 239]. The singular stem *tu is, however, not attested in ǀXam at all, and the lexeme is therefore ineligible for inclusion in the list. The lexicostatistically relevant morpheme is gwaiː.
Bleek 1956: 240; Bleek 2000: 19. Plural form: tu-kǝn ~ tũ-nyǝn ~ tu-ŋǝn. Quoted as tũ, pl. tũŋǝn, túːkǝn in [Bleek 1929: 56]. This is the regular equivalent for 'male human being' as opposed to 'woman' (cf.: ǀake, hŋ ǀõːˤ, tukǝn ɳǀǀa ke, hŋ ǀõːˤ "women, they dance, those men, they dance" [Bleek 1956: 240]). The stem ɡ!oː [Bleek 1956: 383] more properly refers to 'male' being in general (cf.: kue ɡ!oː e "male ostrich it is" [ibid.]), although is occasionally used to designate male people as well (cf.: a ɡǀaiki ha e, a ɡ!oː ki e "this is a woman, that is a man (= male)" [ibid.]).
Maingard 1937: 239. Functions both as the independent noun 'man' and the semi-suffix 'male', attached to names of animals (e. g. !ai ǂoː 'male gemsbok', etc.). Transcribed as ɡǂō (with a voiced efflux) in [Doke 1936: 85].
Miller et al. 2009: 155. Meaning glossed as 'man' (no text examples, so it is not clear if the exact semantics is that of 'male human being' or 'person'; external data clearly speak in favor of the former). Suppletive plural: ɕuː-ke [Miller et al. 2009: 157]. Quoted as ǂó, pl. ɕú-kwe in [Westphal 1965: 139].
Ziervogel 1955: 38. Meaning glossed as 'male'. In [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 112], the meaning 'man' is rendered by the compound form kwi-ƛʼoː, literally 'person' + 'male' (cf. 'woman' q.v.). Quoted as ǀǀɔː in [Bleek 1929: 56]; as ǀǀo in [Bleek 1956: 582].
ǀ'Auni:bɛ4
Bleek 1937: 201; Bleek 1929: 56. Quoted as be ~ bɛ in [Bleek 1956: 15]. Glossed as 'man, male' in [Bleek 1937: 201].
ǀHaasi:biː4
The word n=ǀʰã̀ː is glossed as 'man' in [Story 1999: 22], but textual examples rather suggest the meaning 'husband', cf.: n=ǀhã̀ː a "it is my husband" [Story 1999: 24] (the concatenation with the 1st p. possessive prefix n= further confirms this). The word biː is encountered in the phrase biː a 'it is a man' [Story 1999: 25], and the meaning 'man' is confirmed by the same situation in the closely related ǀʼAuni.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂo ~ *ǂʼo #
Distribution: Preserved in most (but not all) dialects of Nǀuu and in ǀǀXegwi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǂoː 'man, male, person' [Bleek 1956: 662]; ǀǀKuǀǀe tʼo 'male' [Bleek 1956: 206]. Replacements: (a) In some dialects of Nǀuu, including Bleek's ǀǀNg!ke, the singular form *ǂo 'man, male' seems to have been replaced by the formerly suppletive plural stem *tu 'people; men'; (b) the origins of ǀXam =gwai 'male' are obscure; it is not even completely excluded that ǀXam !u=gwai < *!u=ɡ!wai < *!u=ɡǂo-ai with extra suffixation and irregular click loss (through dissimilation of two clicks in one compound formation?), in which case there would be no need to postulate a replacement. However, this scenario, resting on several unprovable assumptions, is somewhat far-fetched, and we currently prefer to regard the ǀXam situation as a lexical replacement of unknown origin; (c) Lower Nǂossob *be ~ *bi 'man, male' finds no obvious parallels in the other !Wi languages, and its archaicity is quite dubious, since the phoneme *b- is not well reconstructible for Proto-!Wi. Reconstruction shape: Click influx is reliably reconstructible as palatal (with a regular shift to lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi), but click accompaniment unpredictably fluctuates between zero (velar) and glottal stop, sometimes even within the same language (cf. different transcriptions in different sources on ǀǀXegwi). This could suggest an original *ǂoʔo (glottalization on the vowel, occasionally transferred to the consonant), but more research has to be carried out on the issue. Semantics and structure: The stem *ǂo ~ *ǂʼo is sometimes employed on its own, but just as often functions as part of the compound *!ui-*ǂo 'person-male', i. e. the original semantics is probably 'male' (of any species) rather than specifically 'man' = 'male person'.
Bleek 1937: 201. Meaning glossed as 'man, person'; technically, this word could be either completely synonymous with bɛ or with ǂʼi 'person' q.v. However, the first option is preferable for the following reason: according to [Bleek 1937: 196], the suppletive plural for both bɛ and de 'man' is tutos ~ tutus. In [Bleek 1956: 240], the list of freely interchangeable plural variants is given as tu-ke ~ tu-ku ~ tu-tu-s ~ tu-tu-se, and the accompanying examples clearly support the semantics of 'men = male human beings', since the word is opposed to 'women', cf.: ɡǀɛki a !oeke, tuke na ǀõː ǂʼui "women are clapping, men are dancing" etc. Additionally, in [Bleek 1929: 56], only the word ǂʼi is given as the equivalent for 'person', although, admittedly, this is not a very strong argument due to the poor quality of the source. The fact that da ~ de is not mentioned in [Bleek 1929] at all makes plausible the hypothesis that da ~ de is the original ǀʼAuni term for 'man = male person', and that in the early 20th century it was being replaced by the newer equivalent bɛ, whereas the original suppletive plural was still being retained. Regardless of whether the scenario is true, we have to treat bɛ and da as synonyms.
Ziervogel 1955: 39. Quoted as qʼiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 117] (in the phrase ɲa šaː ʔe qʼiŋ "it is much water"). Quoted as ǀǀxain in [Bleek 1929: 57] and [Bleek 1956: 632].
Bleek 1956: 5, 9, 37, 39. Transcribed as ãː ~ ãːŋ ~ ãŋ ~ eŋ ~ eŋ-eŋ ~ eín-ya ~ ẽĩŋ-ẽĩŋ-ya by W. Bleek. Reduplicated forms are emphatic in nature. Quoted as ãː ~ eŋ in [Bleek 1929: 57]. The word is most likely a ǀXam-exclusive nominal derivate from hã 'to eat' q.v. (although initial aspiration is completely lacking in the nominal forms, its status in the verbal root is probably secondary as well), and, as such, has replaced the older form ʘu̯aiː, preserved only in the specific meaning 'game' ('meat that moves') [Bleek 1956: 685].
Maingard 1937: 246. Transcribed as ʘoe ~ ʘoi in [Doke 1936: 66]. Secondary synonym: hẽ̄-ǂʼīˤ 'meat' [Doke 1936: 77] (a strange compound form with no etymology). Finally, cf. also the word gāɾú [Doke 1936: 69], with the meaning glossed as 'flesh'.
Ziervogel 1955: 52. Quoted as ʘaː in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102]. Quoted as ʘʌaː in [Bleek 1929: 57]; as ʘwaː ~ ʘwaː-gǝn in [Bleek 1956: 687] (recorded with a "special" variety of the labial click, said to be "released absolutely without the sound of a kiss, more like a plosive p" [Bleek 1956: 682]).
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀXam. Replacements: In ǀXam, the word is preserved only in the narrow meaning 'game'; otherwise, replaced by ãː, a nominal derivative (through conversion) from the verb 'to eat'. The semantic development {'to eat' > 'food' > 'meat'} is typologically common. Reconstruction shape: Reconstruction of the labial click with zero (velar) accompaniment is completely reliable; vocalic reconstruction remains less clear due to possible contractions of the root vocalism with class marker suffixes in different languages.
Bleek 1956: 417, 419. Transcribed as !au!áuru ~ !a!áuru ~ !a!árro by W. Bleek. Quoted as !a!aro ~ !au!auru in [Bleek 1929: 59]. Technically, the word looks like a reduplication, but it could just as easily be a compound, consisting of two parts that are not etymologizable internally (*!au + *!aro).
Bleek 1956: 242, 443, 454. Quoted as !ɔro in [Bleek 1929: 59]. The form turro is mentioned as an "unusual form of !oro"; it is not highly likely that it goes back to a different root, but it does present a curious dialectal enigma.
Distribution: Preserved in all Narrow !Wi languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǂʼɔrɔ, ǀǀKuǀǀe tʼɔlo [Bleek 1956: 207, 675]. Replacements: The Swadesh item 'moon' reflects the binary split between Narrow !Wi and Lower Nǂossob languages, with no etymological way of determining which particular term, Narrow !Wi *ǂoro or Lower Nǂossob *!(ʰ)oi, is more archaic. Naturally, the former is reconstructible at a deeper time level, making it a slightly more probable choice for Proto-!Wi status. Reconstruction shape: The "fluctuating" glottalization of the click efflux (as seen in some Nǀuu dialects, ǀǀKxau and ǀǀKuǀǀe) crops up too frequently to be brushed off as a transcriptional inaccuracy; most likely, the original form was *ǂoʔoro (i. e. contained a glottalized vowel, with glottalization occasionally transferred to or perceived as part of the click efflux).
NUMBER:54
WORD:moon
ǀXam:
ǀǀNg!ke:
ǂKhomani:
Nǀuu:
ǀǀXegwi:
ǀ'Auni:
ǀHaasi:
Proto-!Wi:*!ʰoi(-ŋ) #
The Lower Nǂossob equivalent for 'moon'. See notes on *ǂoro ~ *ǂʼoro.
Bleek 1956: 408, 444. Transcribed as !áo-gǝn ~ !áo-ka ~ !aːo-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as !au ~ !ou in [Bleek 1929: 59]. Same word as 'stone' q.v.; it is possible that in the meaning 'mountain' the root is more frequently used in conjunction with suffixal extensions, but no strict morphological opposition between 'stone' and 'mountain' can really be determined from available materials.
Ziervogel 1955: 60. Encountered once in the texts, within the noun phrase thaŋ ʔe čwa "black mountains"; not very certain. In [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 106], a completely different compound form is quoted in the meaning 'hill, mountain', with two phonetic variants: ɡǀǀu-ɳǀa ~ gu-ɳǀa (the second component here may be ɳǀa 'head' q.v.).
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀʼwa #3
Bleek 1937: 218; Bleek 1956: 629. Meaning glossed as 'hill' (no special word for 'mountain' is known).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!ao #
Distribution: Well attested in ǀXam and Nǀuu; situation in all other languages is dubious. Replacements: Supposed semantic equivalents for 'hill, mountain' in ǀǀXegwi and ǀʼAuni do not look particularly reliable and find no suitable etymological support. Consequently, ǀXam-Nǀuu *!ao 'stone / mountain' emerges as the only candidate for this meaning with sufficient distribution and confirmation in textual sources. See 'stone' for further discussion.
Bleek 1956: 239. Transcribed as tːú, emphatic form tːú-kǝn, pl. tːú-tːu ~ túwa-kǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as tuː in [Bleek 1929: 59]. Polysemy: 'mouth / hole'.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108, 109. Plural form: tu-ŋ. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Quoted as tu in [Bleek 1929: 59] and [Bleek 1956: 239].
ǀ'Auni:ǂuː2
Bleek 1937: 219; Bleek 1956: 664. A somewhat complicated case. The same source lists, as synonymous, the form tu ~ tʰu 'mouth' [Bleek 1937: 207], adding that the form "may be ǂkhomani", i. e. borrowed from Nǀuu-ǂKhomani with whom the ǀʼAuni, as described by D. Bleek, had been in close contacts. Although *tu 'mouth' is a relatively stable !Wi stem, and there is nothing per se that would make its appearance in ǀʼAuni unusual, Bleek's idea is corroborated by the fact that her own earlier data on ǀʼAuni, collected in 1911, although generally inferior in quality to later research, only lists ǂuː and nothing else in the meaning 'mouth' [Bleek 1929: 59]. We go along with her suggestion and include ǂuː as the basic equivalent for this meaning.
Story 1999: 22. The element n= is probably the 1st p. possessive prefix.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂu
Distribution: Preserved only in ǀʼAuni. Replacements: This is a case where our decision rests exclusively on external evidence. ǀʼAuni ǂuː precisely corresponds to !Xóõ (Taa) ǂû-e 'mouth', and, unlike the isogloss between ǀʼAuni tu and early Nǀuu tu 'mouth', the ǀʼAuni-!Xóõ parallel is not easily interpretable as the result of areal contacts. This is significant evidence for regarding the ǀʼAuni form as an archaism, and interpreting Common Narrow !Wi *tu 'mouth' as an innovation (possibly 'mouth' < 'hole'?) that took place before the subgroup's primary split into ǀǀXegwi and ǀXam-Nǀuu. Another problem is the form attested in ǀHaasi, which corresponds to ǀʼAuni ǂuː in its consonantal structure, but shows an entirely different root vowel. Unless it can be shown that ǀHaasi =ǂa is contracted from *ǂu-a, where -a is a fossilized class suffix, we prefer to treat it as another lexical replacement of an obscure nature.
Story 1999: 22. Etymologically probably = "your name" (a= is the 2nd p. possessive prefix), but cf. aǀaŋa kʼas ǀǀkabbo "my name is ǀǀKabbo" [Story 1999: 29].
Proto-!Wi:*ǀe ~ *ǀẽ
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are fairly straightforward. Nasalization is consistently marked everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi, but variation in ǀXam suggests that nasal articulation of the vowel may be due to contraction with a suffixal marker. The extended form in ǀHaasi may be emphatic in origin.
Bleek 1956: 412, 428. Transcribed as !au ~ !ʰou, emphatic form !ʰóu-gǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʰou in [Bleek 1929: 60]. Fluctuation of efflux articulation between aspiration and zero (!au ~ !ʰou) should be interpreted as a possible reflection of improperly identified non-trivial articulation rather than reflexation of two different roots.
Bleek 1956: 103, 448. The clickless variant is mentioned as an "occasional form", reflecting a particular lect that tends to drop the alveolar click. Quoted as !úː in [Bleek 1929: 60].
Ziervogel 1955: 41. Quoted as !eleŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 104]. This form looks quite similar to Ziervogel's ǀʼele, but could represent the same word only if the transcription of the initial click in one of the sources is due to a mistake or typographic error.
Bleek 1937: 216. This word is reproduced in [Bleek 1956: 591], with a supporting textual example: sa ko ǀxʼẽsi, ho ha ǀǀú ǀǀo "bring beads, on my neck put them". There is also a synonymous word for 'neck' attested in all the sources: ǂõĩ ([Bleek 1929: 60]; [Bleek 1937: 219]; [Bleek 1956: 663]); however, no textual confirmations for it are present.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂqu
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǂʼu [Bleek 1956: 676]. Replacements: Replaced in ǀǀXegwi with ǀʼele, a word of unclear provenance. Reconstruction shape: Attestation in different varieties of Nǀuu suggests *ǂqu as the original form of this word. Potential cognates in ǀXam and ǀʼAuni are somewhat problematic: (a) in ǀXam, alveolar ! is an expected correlate for the palatal click in Nǀuu, but the "epenthetic" vowel -a- (or -o-) is not very well understood; (b) ǀʼAuni ǀǀú is only acceptable as a cognate if the lateral click in D. Bleek's records is a mistake for a palatal click (there is also an exotic possibility that *ǂq- > ǀǀ- in ǀʼAuni could have been a regular development; cf. a similar case in the etymon 'short' q.v.).
Bleek 1956: 556, 565, 573. Plural form: ǀǀaˤǀǀaˤr̃r̃a. Transcribed as ǀǀaːŋ ~ ǀǀʰaːŋ by W. Bleek. Polysemy: 'new / fresh / raw'. Attested contexts clearly show that the word may be used both with the semantics of 'freshly grown / raw' and 'replacing a previous object' (e. g. ǀǀʰoː ǀǀaːˤŋ "new bag", ǀǀʰoǀǀʰo ǀǀaˤǀǀaˤr̃r̃a "new bags"). Quoted as ǀǀaːŋ in [Bleek 1929: 61]. The latter source adds a potential synonym: ǀǀwe = ǀǀwèː ~ ǀǀwẽː ~ ǀǀwɛ̃̀ː [Bleek 1956: 599] (only in W. Bleek's records), but rather scarcely attested examples only show this word in conjunction with 'moon', making its "basic" character in ǀXam rather dubious (the adverbial form ǀǀwẽː 'strongly' in the same vocabulary entry is supposed to be derived from this stem, but this is semantically questionable).
ǀǀNg!ke:!xeː-kʸa ~ !xeː-tʸa2
Bleek 1956: 499. Polysemy: 'new / young'. Quoted as simply !xeː in [Bleek 1929: 61]; the forms in [Bleek 1956] look like bimorphemic compounds, but the second component is unclear. The earlier source also lists ǂʼẽ as a synonymous form, but it is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956], whereas !xeː- is even propped up by contextual examples (e. g. !xe !xeː-tʸa "new dresses"; ǀǀxeː ǀʼa ha !xeː-kʸa "the girl is young").
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:ǀǀʼi3
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105. Attested in the phrase haː debe ʔela ǀǀʼi-wa "it is a new knife". Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible based on available data. External data in Taa show that the "marginal" form ǀǀwe in ǀXam, not eligible for basic item position in the attested 19th century varieties of the language, could actually be the best candidate for the meaning 'new' in Proto-!Wi.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105; Bleek 1929: 61. Attested in the expression e ɡǀǀaː "at night". Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Quoted as ɡǀǀa in [Bleek 1956: 522].
Story 1999: 22. Reduplicated stem (reason for reduplication is, however, unknown).
Proto-!Wi:*ɡǀǀa
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǀǀaː [Bleek 1956: 546], ǀǀKuǀǀe ɡǀǀà [Bleek 1956: 522]. Reconstruction shape: The most frequently encountered variant is *ɡǀǀa. The diphthong -au in ǀʼAuni finds no confirmation in other sources and must be the result of contraction with a nominal suffix. C. Doke's marking of glottalized articulation in this root (either as a click efflux or as glottalization on the vowel) is also not confirmed elsewhere and possibly reflects an extended variant like *ɡǀǀa-ʔa.
Bleek 1956: 352. Plural form: ɳǀũ-ɳǀṹː-tu (with reduplication). Transcribed as ɳǀur̃u, pl. ɳǀũɳǀũ-tu "nostrils" by W. Bleek. Quoted as ɳǀur̃u in [Bleek 1929: 62].
Bleek 1956: 353; Bleek 1929: 62. Plural form: ɳǀu-tu-yǝn ~ ɳǀu-tu-ke (plural form meaning is given as 'nostrils' in [Bleek 1956]). The suffix -tu is a standard element in anatomical (and some other) terms.
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ɳǀú-tú, ǀǀKuǀǀe ɳǀu-tu [Bleek 1956: 353]. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are trivial and straightforward. Semantics and structure: In ǀXam and Nǀuu, the root is most commonly encountered in conjunction with the suffix *-tu (< *tu 'hole; mouth'); judging by the situation in ǀʼAuni, this complex formation may have originally referred specifically to 'nostrils'.
Bleek 1956: 121. Transcribed as xʼau ~ xʼaú-ki by W. Bleek. Quoted as kʼau ~ kʼau-ki in [Bleek 1929: 62] (only the complex variant kʼau-ki also quoted as the predicative negation 'no'). There also used to exist a dialectal variant ouki [Bleek 1956: 155], with areal dropping of the initial velar affricate. The negative root morpheme is clearly *xʼau; -ki is a verbalizing suffix ("one of the connectives of double verbs", according to [Bleek 1956: 121]).
Bleek 1956: 342, 348. Quoted as ɳǀa ~ ɳǀɔ in [Bleek 1929: 62]; ɳǀa ~ ɳǀe ~ ɳǀi ~ ɳǀo in [Bleek 2000: 21]. The negation seems to behave like a verbal stem, judging by unpredictable vocalic variation that may have something to do with the usual verbal mergers with class markers in ǀǀNg!ke. Examples: ŋ ɳǀa xŋ tia ha "I did not understand him"; ŋ ɳǀa ǀí ʘwaiki "I do not have any meat" [Bleek 1956: 342]; ŋ ɳǀo ǀǀai "I do not know"; ŋ ɳǀi kieŋ "I do not sleep" [Bleek 1956: 348].
Ziervogel 1955: 43, 53; Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 114. Said by Ziervogel to be pronounced with high tone, as opposed to ʔa 'thou' q.v. with low tone. Translations of 'not' as ǀeːwa and ka in [Bleek 1929: 62] are erroneous; the latter form is not confirmed at all in [Bleek 1956], and ǀeːwa is glossed in [Bleek 1956: 310] as the negative predicate 'not to be', with the example han ǀeːwa ka "he is not here" (there is a possibility of incorrect morphemic segmentation).
Bleek 1937: 203, 206; Bleek 1956: 91, 185, 202. All the three particles are probably variants of one and the same negation *ta (with palatal realization of the initial consonant among some speakers). In [Bleek 1929: 62], 'not' is translated as either taku (probably a contraction of ta and the verbal particle ku) or ǀǀa (probably erroneous, since its existence not confirmed in [Bleek 1937]).
Distribution: On a strictly distributional basis, the item is not properly reconstructible; however, external comparison suggests that the lateral click stem, attested in various forms of Nǀuu, is the most archaic of all alternatives. Additionally, cf. Seroa ǀǀau 'not' [Bleek 1956: 562]. Replacements: Essentially, each language or dialect cluster within !Wi is represented by its own basic negation: ǀXam xʼau, Nǀuu *ǀǀV, ǀǀXegwi ʔa, Lower Nǂossob *ta. It does not seem possible at present to establish a reliable scenario for the historic development of this Swadesh item in !Wi. Semantics and structure: Most of the variants of 'not' in !Wi, including *ǀǀ-, behave like verbal stems, with vocalic gradation in the root typical of most non-derived verbal stems.
Bleek 1956: 566, 582, 590. Other than ɳǀV, no other forms for the basic negation are mentioned in either [Bleek 1929] or [Bleek 2000]. [Bleek 1956], however, offers ample evidence for an alternate negative marker, ǀǀV, which also behaves like a monoconsonantal root with vowel gradation. Examples: !aːˤ ǀǀu ǂóː "rain does not fall" [Bleek 1956: 590]; n ǀǀɔ́ ɳǀǀi ǀǀõẽ "I do not see the sun" [Bleek 1956: 582]; ha ǀǀãũː ǀǀe a "her brother he is not" [Bleek 1956: 566]. Based on available evidence, no differentiation whatsoever can be established between these two forms; we have to treat them as synonymous.
Bleek 1956: 459. Polysemy: 'one / alone / once'. Transcribed as !waːi by W. Bleek; also as !ʼoáːi ~ !ʼo̯áːi only in the meaning 'alone' [Bleek 1956: 490] (but this is clearly the same word). Transcribed as !waːi in [Bleek 1929: 63]. The variety of transcribed variants suggests a "non-trivial" original articulation for the word; may either reflect a glottal stop breaking up a vocalic sequence (*!oʔai) or an unrecognized uvular glottalized efflux (*!qʼoai).
Bleek 1956: 599, 630. Cf. also a variant with a suffixal extension: ǀǀoeː-nso [Bleek 1956: 584]. Quoted as ǀǀwe in [Bleek 1929: 63] and [Bleek 2000: 20]. The glottalized variant ǀǀʼweː is said to be quite rare.
Story 1999: 22. The "suffix" -kʼa may actually be the same as the verbal copula kʼa (i. e. 'one-is'); cf. ǀǀuaː-kʼa 'three'.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂ1oʔ-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀǀxʼoa 'one' [Bleek 1956: 606], Seroa ǀǀoai 'one' [Bleek 1956: 625]. Reconstruction shape: The click influx in this item shows more or less the same reflexes as in the word 'bone' q.v. and a few others; we tentatively reconstruct it as *ǂ1-, indicating that the reflexation is similar to the "normal" palatal click (for ǀXam and Lower Nǂossob languages at least; the Nǀuu reflexation is lateral, and the ǀǀXegwi reflexation is alveolar). Additionally, the efflux fluctuates between velar (zero) and glottalized, which we typically ascribe to glottalic articulation of the vowel, sometimes transferred to the consonantal onset of the syllable. Root vowel is -o- everywhere except for Lower Nǂossob, but the second (suffixal?) vowel varies across languages: *ǂ1oʔ-e ~ *ǂ1oʔ-a, possibly also *ǂ1oʔ-/a/ŋ in Lower Nǂossob.
Bleek 1956: 466. Transcribed as !üi, emphatic form !üi-ten ~ !üi-ya by W. Bleek. The word is sometimes translated as 'man', but generally in ambiguous contexts; the proper equivalent for 'male human being' is the compound form !wi=gwaiː q.v. There also exists a shorter variant of the same root, namely, !u, but it is almost exclusively encountered in compound forms, such as !ü go̯áːi 'man', !ü ǀʼa 'girl', !ü ǀʼaːiti 'woman' (W. Bleek), !u-de 'someone' (L. Lloyd), etc. [Bleek 1956: 447]. This would, however, indicate that the original root is simply !u, whereas -i is an additional nominal suffix. Quoted as !wi ~ !u in [Bleek 1929: 65]. The plural form is suppletive: !é ~ !kʼé, emph. !é-tǝn ~ !kʼé-tǝn (L. Lloyd), !ɛ́ ~ !ɛː ~ !ʼɛ ~ !ei, emph.: !ʼei-tǝn (W. Bleek) 'people' [Bleek 1956: 373, 419, 420] (possibly reflecting an actual form like *!qe or *!qʼe).
Bleek 1956: 458, 466; Bleek 2000: 18. The latter source also notes the existence of a clickless variant kwa for the same word, although it is not mentioned again in any of the dictionaries. The variant !wa is by far the most frequent, but a couple of examples are also given on the use of !wi, which suggests a morphological segmentation into *!u-a, *!u-i. Quoted as !wa in [Bleek 1929: 65]; this source also adds ɡ!e as a possible synonym, but the only known context in [Bleek 1956: 380] gives only plural usage: a ɡ!e nke "they are people". Clearly, this is the same suppletive plural as in ǀXam: cf. also the more common variants, such as !ʼe ~ !ʼe-gǝn ~ !e ~ !kʼe [Bleek 1956: 373, 420; Bleek 2000: 19], which also participate in the self-designating compound form ǀǀŋ-!e, literally 'home people'.
Sands et al. 2006. See notes on ǂKhomani for analysis. It is not clear if the stem !ui is encountered in isolation, but, in any case, it is !ui that carries the central meaning of 'person', with ɳǀǀŋ ('home'?) serving as a modifier for self-designation. Suppletive plural: ɳǀǀŋ ǂeː 'people'. Quoted as ɳǀǀ-!wé, pl. ɳǀǀ-ǂe in [Westphal 1965: 139].
Bleek 1937: 218; Bleek 1956: 643, 652. Although both forms are glossed as 'men, people' in [Bleek 1937] (e. g. as plural forms), this is contradicted by the fact that the same source also lists the specifically plural form ǂʼi-te; textual examples confirming both variants as singular forms are also found in [Bleek 1956: 652], e. g. ǂʼi ti ǂʼú-u "one person". Quoted as ǂʼi, pl. ǂʼiː-te in [Bleek 1929: 65]. On the possibility of the word da to be translated as 'person', see under 'man'.
Distribution: Preserved throughout Narrow !Wi, but seemingly dropped in the Lower Nǂossob branch. Replacements: Most languages of the Narrow !Wi branch present firm evidence that the paradigm of this noun was suppletive in the protolanguage: *!u- (sg.) vs. *ǂe ~ *ǂʼe (possibly = *ǂeʔe) (pl.). In comparison, Lower Nǂossob languages only show reflexes of the second root both in sg. and pl. forms; this is most logically interpreted as an innovative generalization of the plural form, with a "new" plural formed wherever necessary (e. g. sg. ǂʼi vs. pl. ǂʼi-te in ǀʼAuni). The semantic shift {'people' > 'person'} is quite trivial. Reconstruction shape: The basic root shape of the sg. 'person' is straightforwardly reconstructible as *!u-; *!u-i and *!u-a are probably morphological variants, although only the former is widely distributed and clearly traceable back to proto-status.
Bleek 1956: 431, 457. Transcribed as !ʰwaː by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʰwaː in [Bleek 1929: 68] (the latter source also adds the compound !ʰwaː ǀǀi, literally 'water's liquid', in the same meaning, but this is hardly the basic denotation). External data show that the Proto-!Wi roots for 'rain' and 'water' must have been different, but phonetically similar, and it is not excluded that the two words had been confused in transcription, both by W. Bleek and L. Lloyd. There is, however, no direct evidence for such a confusion in any of the records, and it must be assumed that in ǀXam the two words simply merged into one.
Bleek 1956: 423; Bleek 2000: 28. Quoted as !ʰàː in [Bleek 1929: 68]. It is unclear if this word is exactly the same as 'water' q.v., or a phonetically similar stem obscured by inadequate transcription. See notes on ǀXam for an identical situation in that language.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 100. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Attested mostly as a verbal root (e. g. ha gaʔa haɲ ɕʰeuŋ-we "the sky is raining" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118]), thus, slightly dubious. In [Bleek 1929: 68] an entirely different word is quoted: gaːa (gaa in [Bleek 1956: 41]).
Bleek 1937: 216. Quoted as ǀǀʰàː in [Bleek 1929: 68]. See notes on 'water' for further details.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested. Cf., however, ǂĩ́ 'to rain' (verb) [Story 1999: 22].
Proto-!Wi:*ǂqa-
Distribution: Preserved everywhere where attested. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences for the click influx between ǀXam, Nǀuu, and ǀʼAuni are the same as in 'neck' q.v., allowing to trace all the attested forms to a common prototype; lateral click in ǀʼAuni may have been a mistake on D. Bleek's part, or the result of regular phonetic change from an original *ǂq-. For the affricate in ǀǀXegwi, cf. 'short' with an identic development. Click efflux varies between zero, aspirated, and uvular; we tentatively assume uvular articulation as primary because of the more recent and allegedly accurate Nǀuu data, but *ǂqʰ- is almost equally probable as the proto-phoneme. The vocalic coda is realized as -a(a) or -au, probably reflecting different nominal suffixation, but this situation is actually quite unique, and bears further investigation.
Bleek 1956: 427, 434. Verbal root: 'to be red'. Transcribed as !iː by W. Bleek. Quoted as !íː in [Bleek 1929: 69].
ǀǀNg!ke:xreː-kʸa2
Bleek 1956: 260. Meaning is glossed as 'red, brown', with a supporting text example: ǀǀʼõĩ e xreːkʸa "the sun is red" (?). In [Bleek 1929: 69], the word is quoted simply as xreː, without the second auxiliary morpheme. Root structure here is atypical of ǀǀNg!ke and Khoisan in general and may represent a secondary reduction from *xVre.
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'red; reddish brown'. The form is a transparent borrowing from Khoekhoe (Nama ǀʼawa, !Ora ǀxʼaba 'red'). There is also a (presumably less used) synonym ku=ǂqĩ, which must be more archaic (cf. the same equivalent in C. Doke's recordings of ǂKhomani).
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115. Meaning glossed as 'be red'. The entry 'red' = ǀamse in [Bleek 1929: 69] has to be amended in the light of the same word in [Bleek 1956: 300]: the earlier publication accidentally misprints 'reed' as 'red'.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:cxwe-kʼa4
Story 1999: 22.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂ1e ~ *ǂ1i
Distribution: An isogloss between ǀXam and ǀǀXegwi, making the word the optimal candidate for "Proto-Narrow !Wi". Reconstruction on a deeper level is impossible. Replacements: Except for Nǀuu ǀxʼaba, which is most likely a recent introduction of Khoekhoe origin, most of the other equivalents for the meaning 'red' in !Wi languages do not easily find internal correspondences. They also tend to be phonetically peculiar (e.g. xreː- in ǀǀNg!ke), suggesting further possibilities of borrowing that have to be investigated. Reconstruction shape: The consonantal correspondence between ǀXam !iː- and ǀǀXegwi !e is the same as in the etyma 'bone' and 'one' q.v., which we currently mark as *ǂ1-. The vowel is unquestionably a front one, but the exact quality is not easily determinable. In Nǀuu, the expected click influx correspondence would have been lateral ǀǀ-; consequently, ǂKhomani ǂʼī in Doke's transcription cannot be compared.
Bleek 1956: 497. Meaning glossed as 'path'. Transcribed as !xárra by W. Bleek. Quoted as !xaːra in [Bleek 1929: 64]. The latter source also mentions a second synonym: !auː-ö = !au ~ !ao in [Bleek 1956: 408, 412], where this word is understood as a figurative meaning of 'stone, mountain' q.v. Regardless of whether this is just homonymy or, indeed, a result of semantic shift, the accompanying text examples do not refer to man-made paths, cf.: he ha siŋ ǂakka ka !auː "of which (ostrich) he told me its path" [Bleek 1956: 412]; ŋ kwaŋ taŋ kaŋ ǀǀaː !kʼãũː ǀʰiŋ ɡ!uru-ɳǀǀaː-ka !áó "I therefore intend to go passing through !Guru-ǀǀNa's pass" [Bleek 1956: 408].
Bleek 1937: 213 (quoted as kʌ́n, with the click symbol omitted through a typographic error); Bleek 1956: 456 (with the click symbol correctly restored). Quoted as !ʼane in [Bleek 1929: 65]: probably the same word in a misheard (or dialectal) variant. Meaning is glossed as 'path' in all sources. Cf. also additional synonyms: (a) ǀǀùru 'path' ([Bleek 1937: 216]; [Bleek 1956: 593]); (b) ǂxʼei 'road, path' ([Bleek 1937: 219]; [Bleek 1956: 668]); semantic difference unknown, but only !án has external cognates.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!an
Distribution: Preserved in Nǀuu, ǀǀXegwi, and ǀʼAuni (unless the ǀʼAuni word is a borrowing from Nǀuu, in which case the reconstruction is only reliable for the "Narrow !Wi" level). Replacements: Forms in ǀXam and "old Nǀuu" (ǀǀNg!ke) have no known etymology. Reconstruction shape: Alveolar click *!- is reliably reconstructed based on the correspondence between Nǀuu !- and ǀǀXegwi k- (click loss, like in the word for 'person' q.v.).
NUMBER:68
WORD:root
ǀXam:
Unclear. The only unambiguous candidate would be !aui, given as the equivalent of 'root' in [Bleek 1929: 71]; however, the same word is translated more specifically as 'wild onion' in [Bleek 1956: 414]. Other possible candidates from the same source include ɳǀũnu "roots, fibres" [Bleek 1956: 352]; ǂʼʰáˤna, pl. ǂʼʰaˤǂʼʰáˤnu "fibrous root" [Bleek 1956: 650] (both from L. Lloyd's records); neither explicitly qualifies as the default word for 'root' (gen.), and it is not even clear if such a generic term existed in ǀXam in the first place.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:!ʰabe-si #1
Sands et al. 2006. According to B. Sands (p.c.), "only one of the Eastern Nǀuu speakers knows this word", and a more suitable candidate may be ɡǂao-si ~ ɡǂãũ-si 'root of shepherd's tree (Boscia albitrunca)', also used in the meaning 'root (general)'. The issue needs further elaboration.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:ǂau-si #2
Bleek 1937: 219; Bleek 1956: 658. Meaning glossed as 'small roots', therefore, the lexicostatistical entry is dubious (although the word itself is not, since it is clearly the same as Nǀuu ɡǂao-si ~ ɡǂãũ-si 'root of shepherd's tree'. The earlier, less reliable source lists the form ɳ!uma 'root' [Bleek 1929: 71], but in [Bleek 1937: 214] the exact same form is listed with the meaning 'tobacco' (?).
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Bleek 1956: 113, 116. Reduplicated verbal stem, applicable to round objects (e. g. 'sun', 'egg'). Transcribed as kwórre-kwórre ~ ku̯órrɛː-ku̯órrɛː by W. Bleek. Quoted as kɔ̀re-kɔre ~ kwǝre-kwǝre in [Bleek 1929: 71]. Cf. also ǀǀérritǝn-ǀǀérritǝn [Bleek 1956: 570], also glossed as 'round' in one example (applied, however, to "a small troop of springbok", so the exact meaning may be 'to surround, encircle').
Bleek 1929: 71. Dubious; the word is not attested at all in the large dictionary [Bleek 1956].
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation. Items in ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke are quite likely cognate with each other, but their authenticity is not confirmed in any newer sources, and the forms belong to the expressive lexicon layer, not to mention the easy possibility of their areal diffusion.
Bleek 1956: 372, 412. Same word as 'earth' q.v. Quoted as !ãũ in [Bleek 1929: 71]. For all the phonetic/transcriptional variants with discussion, see under 'earth'.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested. Should probably be the same word as 'earth' q.v., but there is no explicit confirmation of this in either [Bleek 1929] or [Bleek 1956].
Sands et al. 2006. Same word as 'earth' q.v. Quoted as !ʼãũ in [Westphal 1965: 144].
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*!ʼãũ ~ *!qʼãũ
In both of the languages where the meaning 'sand' is attested, it is expressed by the same word as 'earth' q.v.; there is no factual reason to suggest that this polysemy was not present in Proto-!Wi as well.
Bleek 1956: 654, 655. Transcribed as ǂá-kkǝn ~ ǂá-kka ~ ǂaˤ-ǂáˤ-kkǝn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǂa-kǝn in [Bleek 1929: 71]. This is rather transparently the primary equivalent for 'say' in ǀXam, being the main means of introducing direct speech (cf. ha oakǝn ǂakka hĩ... "their father says to them...", etc.). The form is morphologically complex, with one of ǀXam's most common derivational suffixes that usually serves as a nominalizer. Other potential synonyms, listed in [Bleek 1929: 71], include: (a) ka, glossed as 'to wish, intend, think, say' in [Bleek 1956: 73] and, judging from the contexts, generally applied to mental rather than verbal activity; (b) kuːi = kúːi ~ kúi-tǝn "speaking" [Bleek 1956: 104], also glossed in the meaning 'think' and featuring in a very limited set of contexts/examples.
Bleek 1929: 71. Dubious, since the word is not found in the large dictionary [Bleek 1956]. However, ka as the basic word for 'say' is strongly supported by external data (ǂKhomani, Nǀuu), and the other quasi-synonym listed in [Bleek 1929: 71], ǀǀãla, is clearly ineligible, since its meaning is confirmed as 'to speak' rather than 'say' in [Bleek 1956: 554], where it is quoted as ǀǀalaʔã ~ ǀǀàˤlaˤ, cf.: a ǀǀàˤlaˤ ǀǀŋ-!wá !winkʸa "thou speakest the Bushman language".
Bleek 1937: 203; Bleek 1956: 95. Meaning glossed as 'says, cries' (in [Bleek 1937]) or as 'to say, scream' (in [Bleek 1956]). This is one of the two main verbs that introduce direct speech in ǀʼAuni. The other is ǀu ([Bleek 1937: 210]; [Bleek 1956: 322]); the difference is unclear - for instance, within one text dictated by a single woman ([Bleek 1937: 198]) the narrative begins with ǀu used several times, after which the narrator suddenly switches to ko for no apparent reason. We have to count both forms as synonyms.
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀXam (where it seems to have undergone a semantic shift) and ǀHaasi (if Story's source is to be trusted). Replacements: (a) the source of ǀXam ǂa- remains unclear, but its textual attestation suggests that it had managed to more or less permanently replace the older ka as the basic equivalent for 'say'; (b) Common Lower Nǂossob *ǀu- 'to say', functioning as a complete synonym of ko in ǀʼAuni, finds no reliable parallels in "Narrow !Wi". Reconstruction shape: The verb is commonly represented by either the variant *ka or the variant with a labial vowel (usually *ku), probably reflecting the usual (poorly understood) scenario of vocalic fluctuation in basic (CV-type) verbal roots.
Bleek 1956: 341, 345, 347. Transcribed as ɳǀaː ~ ɳǀãː ~ ɳǀɛː ~ ɳǀĩː ~ ɳǀiː ~ ɳǀi by W. Bleek. Quoted as ɳǀiː ~ ɳǀa in [Bleek 1929: 72]. Vocalic fluctuation is a typical ǀXam feature of short verbal stems and may reflect mergers with various class suffixes; the original root is arguably best denoted as ɳǀV-. Secondary synonym: ǀǀxʼóen ~ ǀǀxʼóeŋ [Bleek 1956: 607], glossed as "to see, look" (transcribed as ǀǀxʼoen ~ ǀǀxʼoein by W. Bleek; quoted as ǀǀkʼoen in [Bleek 1929: 72]); some attested contexts suggest 'see' as a better semantic equivalent than 'look', but, overall, it is statistically evident that ɳǀV is the more basic item in this meaning.
Bleek 1956: 341, 345, 347; Bleek 1929: 72; Bleek 2000: 24. Vocalic fluctuation, same as in ǀXam, is typical of short verbal stems. Secondary synonym: ǀeːn(-ya) ([Bleek 1929: 72]; [Bleek 1956: 309]), attested in one dubious example (n ǀeːnya ǀǀwe "I have seen the animals"); clearly a different root, but statistically quite unlikely to represent the basic equivalent for the meaning 'see'.
Maingard 1937: 245, 246, 252. Secondary synonym: ǂai [ibid.]. The semantic difference is unclear and suggests incorrect translation (cf., among Maingard's examples, such a strange opposition as a ǂai ŋ "you see me", but a ɳǀaʔ a "you see yourself"): most likely, ǂai is actually 'look' rather than 'see'. This suggestion is further corroborated by the occasional translation 'look' even in [Maingard 1937] itself, as well as the more modern data from Nǀuu.
Ziervogel 1955: 36, 49. The past tense form is transcribed as ɳǀaː [ibid.]. Infinitive: ɳǀa-ziŋ, imperative forms: ɳǀaː (sg.), ɳǀa-u (pl.) [Ziervogel 1955: 48]. Quoted as ɳǀi ~ ɳǀa in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 105]; as ɳǀeː ~ ɳǀaː in [Bleek 1929: 72]; as ɳǀaː ~ ɳǀe in [Bleek 1956: 341, 345].
Bleek 1937: 211; Bleek 1956: 341. Cf. also the phonetically similar form ǀʌn ([Bleek 1937: 210]; [Bleek 1956: 327]; quoted as ǀɯn in [Bleek 1929: 72]). It is not clear if this is a separate root (and if yes, what is the difference between the two), or if it is yet another morphological variant of the same stem ɳǀV-.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Nasalized dental click is preserved in all daughter languages and reconstructed without hesitation. Vocalic fluctuations are quite typical for all CV-type verbal roots.
NUMBER:73
WORD:seed
ǀXam:
Not attested.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested. Possibly no generic term at all in the language.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested. There is a gloss ǀxʼuri 'seeds' in [Bleek 1929: 72]; however, it is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956] or any other, more reliable sources. Even if the entry is correct, it is in all certainty a borrowing from Central Khoisan (Proto-Non-Khoekhoe *ǀxuri 'seed'), and should be excluded from lexicostatistical calculations all the same.
Bleek 1937: 207; Bleek 1956: 220. Meaning glossed as 'pips, seeds'. Cf.: ǂwi cʼou "seeds of tsamma" [Bleek 1956: 220]. Also attested as a compound: ǂu-cʼo 'seeds, pips' [Bleek 1937: 219], although the first component is unclear. Another possible candidate is ǀǀwai [Bleek 1937: 216]; cf. n ǀʼʰõ ǀǀwai si-ǂʼa "I pick up seeds into the kaross" [Bleek 1956: 596].
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation. The form in ǀʼAuni may be etymologically connected with the Common !Kwi compound stem for 'eye' q.v.; if its internal etymology as 'seed+face' is correct, then cʼou is an archaism and may well represent the old equivalent for 'seed', but there is no direct comparative evidence to confirm that.
Bleek 1956: 171, 181. Transcribed as so ~ sːoː ~ sːʼo ~ šːoː by W. Bleek. Quoted as sʼoː ~ šʼoː in [Bleek 1929: 76]. This is the stative verb ('to sit, be sitting'); the dynamic action verb ('to sit down') is expressed by an apparently derivative stem: sːoéːŋ ~ sːo̯eŋ ~ sːoéːnya ~ sːwéŋ (W. Bleek), sːueːŋ ~ sːueːnya ~ sːueŋ-sːueŋ (L. Lloyd) [Bleek 1956: 172, 173, 175].
Bleek 1956: 171; Bleek 2000: 20. Quoted as sʼɔː in [Bleek 1929: 76]. This is the stative verb ('to sit, be sitting'); the dynamic action verb ('to sit down') is expressed by an apparently derivative stem: soeːŋ ~ soẽya ~ swünya [Bleek 1956: 172, 176].
Maingard 1937: 252. As in other cases, differently vocalized variants may reflect mergers with class markers or other types of suffixation. Transcribed as sôu in [Doke 1936: 63].
Ziervogel 1955: 40, 51. The simple form, according to Ziervogel, is used as the past or future tense; the present tense stem is šoge-ŋe [ibid.]. Possibly the same stem is quoted as šoɢaʔane 'sit and wait for me' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 116], where it is analyzed as šo 'sit' + ɢaʔa 'wait' + ne 'me'. Quoted as šoː in [Bleek 1929: 76]; as šoː ~ šo ~ čo in [Bleek 1956: 181, 232].
Bleek 1937: 205, 206; Bleek 1956: 161, 164, 171. Meaning glossed as 'to sit down, put down, set, stay', but textual examples confirm that this is also the basic equivalent for the static verb 'to sit'. In [Bleek 1929: 76], the form sã is listed in the meaning 'to sit', and a strange form !ʼʰowa, not confirmed in later sources, in the meaning 'to sit down'. Should be distinguished from !ãũ 'to sit, to squat' [Bleek 1937: 213].
Story 1999: 23. Secondary synonym: !xi-kʼi [ibid.].
Proto-!Wi:*soʔ-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The first consonant is clearly *s- (compare with *cʼi 'bite' q.v. to make certain that reconstructing an affricate here is out of the question). However, in order to account for the glottal stop in ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke, as well as the glottalized affricate in ǀHaasi, it has to be presumed that glottalic articulation was at least defined on the original vowel (i.e. ǀXam sːʼo < *soʔV, etc.). The basic root seems to frequently interact with verbal suffixes, e. g. *soʔ-ĩ (in Nǀuu > sõẽ or sũĩ with vocalic assimilation), *soʔ-ã (in ǀʼAuni), *soʔ-i (in ǀHaasi > cʼi).
Bleek 1956: 240. Transcribed as tːũ, emphatic form tːũŋ ~ tːũwaŋ by W. Bleek. Quoted as tũː in [Bleek 1929: 76]. The latter source also quotes a secondary synonym: ɡǀǀɔ, glossed, however, in [Bleek 1956: 531] as 'outer skin' and encountered in application to a snake's shed skin and the skin of a dead person. Clearly not the basic word for 'skin' in the light of both internal and external evidence.
Bleek 1956: 26, 240, 243. The form diõ is somewhat dubious and may represent a different lexeme. Quoted as tũː in [Bleek 1929: 76]. The same source lists ǀou as a synonym; in [Bleek 1956: 321] the word is glossed as 'skin, leather', with one textual example supporting only the second meaning (ŋ ǀǀʼayan ǀou !xí "I bring a skin dress").
Distribution: Preserved in Narrow !Kwi. Replacements: Narrow !Wi *tuŋ is opposed to Lower Nǂossob *ǀǀʼu (reconstruction relies on ǀʼAuni rather than ǀHaasi), but external comparanda in Taa languages (!Xóõ tùˤm, etc.) show that the Narrow !Kwi variant is more semantically archaic. The Lower Nǂossob variant finds an interesting etymological parallel in Narrow !Kwi; ǀXam ɡǀǀɔ 'outer skin', 'shed skin', allowing to suggest a possible replacement {'outer skin / shed skin' > 'skin (gen.')}, although the data are clearly insufficient to secure this conclusion. Reconstruction shape: The nasal coda seems to be retained in ǀǀXegwi, but as a rule, dissipates into vowel nasalization in the other languages (*tuŋ > tũ). Palatalisation in Nǀuu is regular, but the reasons for voicing of the initial consonant remain unclear - an issue to be investigated further, possibly affecting the phonological status of the reconstructed segment.
Bleek 1956: 684, 686. Transcribed as ʘoeŋ ~ ʘoeŋ-ya ~ ʘoe-ʘoeŋ by W. Bleek. Quoted as ʘoen in [Bleek 1929: 76]. There also exists a secondary synonym: ǀʼũːŋ (L. Lloyd, W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 359], quoted as ǀʼũŋ in [Bleek 1929: 76]; its exact meaning is hard to determine based on attested examples, but it is likely to have been the dynamic action verb 'to lie down (to sleep)' (cf. such a diagnostic example as heː si ǀʼũːŋ ĩː ... ŋ a xʼauki ʘwoiŋ "then we lay down... I did not sleep" [Bleek 1956: 359]).
Bleek 1956: 684, 686; Bleek 1929: 76. In D. Bleek's records, the verb kia 'to lie' q.v. is also very frequently glossed as 'to sleep' (e. g. within a complete transcribed "paradigm" ŋ kiaː, a kiaː, etc., translated as "I sleep, thou sleepest, etc." [Bleek 1956: 91]). However, it may be assumed that the primary meaning of kia is 'to lie', based on (a) external evidence and, more importantly, (b) the fact that only for kia we also have contexts such as ǀwi ǀʼi kia ha ɳǀǀai "the bird stays (= lies) in her nest" (certainly not *'sleeps') [ibid.]. Nevertheless, there must have been some actual overlapping between the two concepts, and it is possible that in this particular dialect the old etymon ʘoiŋ was being gradually replaced by kia.
Ziervogel 1955: 36, 39, 52. The simple stem, according to Ziervogel, is only used in the future tense. The present tense stem is ʘi-ɲe; the past tense stem is ʘi-ɲa [Ziervogel 1955: 52]. Quoted as ʘweːni ~ ʘweːŋ ~ ʘwen in [Bleek 1956: 685, 687] (with the same "special" type of labial click that D. Bleek perceives in the word 'meat' q.v.).
Bleek 1937: 220; Bleek 1956: 686. Quoted as ʘwoiŋ in [Bleek 1929: 76]. The latter source also adds kia as a synonym, but this word is rather the basic ǀʼAuni equivalent for 'to lie' q.v.
Story 1999: 23. Transcribed with a space (ʘwa ai), but must be a single word (perhaps, ʘwaʔai).
Proto-!Wi:*ʘu- ~ *ʘi-
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The only certain thing about this reconstruction is the initial click (labial, with zero/velar release; glottal stop in old ǂKhomani records is most likely erroneous, since it is not confirmed anywhere else). Vocalism and presence/absence of nasalization (either as an additional vocalic feature or as a consonant) are heavily influenced by the verbal nature of the stem, which seems to be encountered with a variety of suffixes. Although nasality is a very common feature here (and is further confirmed by external data), it is interesting to note that in ǀǀXegwi as well as in ǀHaasi, variants without nasalization are attested, and it is not highly likely that nasalization could have been secondarily lost in these languages.
Bleek 1956: 643. Plural form: ǂʼénː (on a formal synchronic basis, the singular stem is derived from the plural one). Transcribed as ǂʼer̃r̃iː ~ ǂʼér̃r̃i, pl. ǂʼenn by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǂʼẽri in [Bleek 1929: 76]. This seems to be the least strongly marked equivalent for 'small' in ǀXam. Two more forms are listed in [Bleek 1929: 76]: (a) cʼǝre = sg. cːérre ~ cérre, pl. cːétten (L. Lloyd), cʼéttǝn ~ cʼɛ́ttǝn (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 215]. This lexeme is said to be exclusively used in conjunction with the negative (xʼauki cerre 'not small'), and all textual examples confirm this; (b) -ʘwa = ʘu̯á [Bleek 1956: 684]; this is a diminutive morpheme, mostly found in conjunction with words for 'children' or 'young of birds/animals' (toi ʘwa 'little ostrich', etc.).
Bleek 1956: 652; Bleek 1929: 76. The secondary synonym ʘwain-ki [Bleek 1956: 685] ~ ʘwoin-ki [Bleek 1929: 76] is more rare and most probably applied only to young animals (cf. the given example mirriŋ ʘwain-ki "little goats").
Maingard 1937: 256. The efflux is marked with both a glottal stop and the velar obstruent k, whatever that might mean according to Maingard's notation. Cf. ʘónē 'small' in [Doke 1936: 73] (most probably the same root, but with a different click efflux and an extra suffix at the end).
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'small, few'. Secondary synonym: ʘũ (primarily used to form diminutives, as in ǀXam and other !Wi-Taa languages).
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Quoted as ƛʼini 'be small' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98]. The latter source also adduces a secondary synonym: ʘari [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 104]. Quoted as ǀǀxʼeni in [Bleek 1929: 76]; as ǀǀxʼeːni in [Bleek 1956: 601].
Bleek 1929: 76. Only attested in this early, not very reliable, source, so the entry is dubious.
ǀHaasi:nʸái-si4
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂʼeni
Distribution: Preserved in most of the Narrow !Wi dialects, but seems to have been largely lost in Lower Nǂossob. Replacements: (a) The situation with Lower Nǂossob languages is unclear, since the ǀʼAuni equivalent is only attested in an early dubious source, and the ǀHaasi entry, with its initial palatal nasal, is phonologically odd and looks like an "expressive" term; (b) ǂKhomani ʘʼkõ in Maingard's vocabulary is to be compared with a whole series of words meaning 'child, son, daughter; young; little, small' in !Wi languages [Bleek 1956: 682-687]; however, as a rule, this word is never used to denote objects that are small in size, so either the meaning in ǂKhomani was inaccurately glossed or there was a minor semantic shift in that dialect of Nǀuu ('young, little /of age/' > 'small /in size/'). Reconstruction shape: Initial palatal click is well preserved in ǀXam and Nǀuu and regularly shifts to a lateral affricate in ǀǀXegwi. Of particular note is the fact that in ǀXam, the palatal click is consistently marked as such, rather than as an alveolar click (cf. 'dog', etc.). The implications of this for the reconstruction are not yet clear (separate click phoneme? special positional development? result of recent borrowing?). Bisyllabic nature of the word is well preserved in ǀǀXegwi and is reflected as vocalic nasalization in Nǀuu.
Bleek 1956: 533. Quoted as ɡǀǀɔ̀ in [Bleek 1929: 77]. Somewhat dubious (only attested in the compound form ɡǀǀɔ́ː-ka !wi "smoke's man" (?)), but seems to be confirmed by external evidence.
Story 1999: 23. Said to denote both noun and verb, although the only textual example is within the phrase 'I smoke'.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀoˤ
Distribution: This is an isogloss between ǀXam, Nǀuu, and ǀHaasi, and, consequently, the optimal candidate for 'smoke' in Proto-!Wi. Replacements: ǀǀNg!ke ǀwiː, ǀǀXegwi kʰaʔa-zi, and ǀʼAuni ɳǀǀaːlu currently show no external parallels that would explain their origins. Reconstruction shape: We tentatively choose the Nǀuu form as the most conservative, simply because of the accuracy of transcription. It does not correlate well with such features as voiced articulation of the click in ǀXam, additional glottal stop in Doke's ǂKhomani, or the diphthong -au in ǀHaasi; however, we are not sure as to whether at least some of these features have not simply been inaccurately transcribed.
Bleek 1956: 425. Polysemy: 'stand / remain / stop'. Transcribed as !ʰeː ~ !ʰe by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʰeː in [Bleek 1929: 79]. The verb is quite distinct from the dynamic 'to stand up': kːóaˤŋ (L. Lloyd), kóaŋ ~ kːóːaŋ (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 97].
Bleek 1956: 611. Quoted as ɳǀǀá in [Bleek 1929: 79]. Slightly dubious; the main meaning of this verbal stem in ǀXam is 'to stay, dwell, be somewhere', and many particular contexts in ǀǀNg!ke display the same semantics, cf.: hn ɳǀǀa hn einki "they stay with their father", ha ɳǀǀá ɡ!au "he is at the door" [Bleek 1956: 611]. However, cf. also: ŋ !a ɳǀǀa "I stand" [ibid.]. Also, no serious competition for this stem is attested, with the potential weak exception of !uŋ [Bleek 1956: 453]. Overall, it must be stated that no truly diagnostic contexts, in which it would be transparently clear that the Swadesh meaning is present, are attested in Bleek's corpus of examples.
Ziervogel 1955: 48, 51. The simple stem, according to Ziervogel, is used as the past or future tense; the present tense stem is !ʔoʔo-ge-ne. The imperative forms glossed as: !ʔoʔo-geŋa (sg.), !ʔoʔo-u "stand ye!". The same word is possibly quoted as ǀǀɔːro in [Bleek 1929: 79], although it is not confirmed in [Bleek 1956].
Bleek 1937: 212. Meaning glossed as: 'up, to stand'. The same word is quoted in [Bleek 1929: 79] as !ã 'to stand' (with the zero efflux, possibly erroneous); and in [Bleek 1956: 368], in the textual example: misis kʼwi saː !ʼã́ "Missis is standing up".
ǀHaasi:ɳ!wa5
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:
Reconstruction of this item is postponed due to too many difficulties: many languages feature phonetically similar forms that, however, do not manage to "come together" under any plausible historical scenario.
Bleek 1956: 596, 610. Plural form: ǀǀwaiˤ-nkʸe ~ ǀǀxʼweː-gǝn. Quoted as ǀǀwèi-sa in [Bleek 1929: 79]. The suffix -sa is a rarely encountered class marker.
Sands et al. 2007: 62. Polysemy: 'star / hedgehog' (apparently a common association for South Khoisan speakers, known also in !Xóõ). Quoted as ɡǀǀoiˤ-sí in [Westphal 1965: 143] (meaning glossed as pl. 'stars').
Ziervogel 1955: 38, 45. The form is plural ('stars'); the singulative form is ǀouni-zi. A completely different form, kale, is found in [Bleek 1929: 79] (quoted as kaleː 'stars' in [Bleek 1956: 78]).
Bleek 1937: 213; Bleek 1929: 79. Quoted as !ʼʰa in [Bleek 1956: 394].
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀxʼoeˤ- #
Distribution: Based on these data, the optimal candidate for Proto-!Wi (more precisely, Proto-Narrow !Wi) 'star' should be the isogloss between ǀXam and ǀǀXegwi. However, it must also be noted that the best external parallels (in Taa) are for the Nǀuu entry, and there is no sufficient evidence to think of any intense secondary Taa-Nǀuu contacts. Additionally, the item with the lateral click is also seen in several languages for which lexicostatistical calculations are impossible: cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀǀan-te 'stars' (pl.), ǀǀKxau ǀǀʼɔan-si id. [Bleek 1956: 557]. We consider this evidence more substantial, which would mean that ǀXam and ǀǀXegwi may have independently replaced the original etymon (an easy possibility if the old root *ǀU- denoted a semantically close phenomenon, such as 'big star, planet', etc.). Replacements: No current etymologization for either the etymon seen in ǀXam and ǀǀXegwi or for ǀʼAuni !ʼʰaː. Reconstruction shape: All relevant data unequivocally agree on the reconstruction of the lateral click influx. Click efflux varies between several fluctuating reflexes. We tentatively accept the Nǀuu form as archaic, and ascribe the fluctuations to various assimilative/dissimilative processes, caused by its containing a glottalized velar affricate in the click efflux position and pharyngealization of the vowel at the same time. Naturally, this is a temporary decision, pending more detailed work on correspondences.
Bleek 1956: 412, 444. Plural form: !au-gǝn ~ !au-ukǝn. Quoted as !au ~ !ou in [Bleek 1929: 80]. Same word as 'mountain' q.v. (see 'mountain' for speculations on possible morphological differentiation between the two meanings).
Ziervogel 1955: 40. Quoted as ɕʼeo in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 100]. Cf. also the variant ǯwe 'stone' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 47]; the authors mention that "this is not the common Bushman word for 'stone', and it was obtained from one group of informants only". It is also proposed that this latter form may be a borrowing from Sotho liː=ǯwe id. In [Bleek 1929: 80] and [Bleek 1956: 265, 266], two forms for 'stone' are quoted: že and žuː. It is not clear if they represent the same word as Lanham & Hallowes' ɕʼeo or ǯwe (or both?). Overall, a rather complicated situation.
ǀ'Auni:ǀǀxʼɔː #3
Bleek 1929: 80. Only attested in this early, not very reliable, source, so the entry is dubious.
Distribution: Preserved almost everywhere, with the possible exception of some Nǀuu dialects and ǀʼAuni (the ǀʼAuni entry is dubious). Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau !ao 'stone' [Bleek 1956: 408] and possibly ǀǀKuǀǀe dʔɔ 'rock' [Bleek 1956: 26]. Replacements: (a) ǂKhomani ǀǀuɾu = ǀXam ǀǀúːru ~ ǀǀurru 'stone knife, splinter of stone, quartz' [Bleek 1956: 593]; if Maingard's semantics is correct, this could reflect a semantic shift {'stone knife / stone splinter' > 'stone (gen.)'}; (b) ǀʼAuni ǀǀxʼɔː is a dubious form with no parallels. Reconstruction shape: Determined primarily by the shape of this word in ǀXam and Nǀuu. However, the actual vocalic structure may have been different, cf. ǀHaasi !òè and the palatalized reflexation in ǀǀXegwi žeu ~ ɕʼeo.
Bleek 1956: 607, 626, 627. Polysemy: 'sun / day / thirst'. Transcribed as ǀǀṍĩŋ ~ ǀǀʼõĩː ~ ǀǀʼõĩːŋ ~ ǀǀʼṹĩ́ŋ, emphatic form: ǀǀṍĩ́ŋ-yaŋ ~ ǀǀʼoiːŋ-ya by W. Bleek. In L. Lloyd's records, the form ǀǀʼũĩː is only recorded in the meaning 'day'. Quoted as ǀǀõĩŋ in [Bleek 1929: 81]. Irregular fluctuation of transcription between glottalic, velar affricate, and simple velar articulation of the click efflux suggests an original "non-trivial", undetected type of efflux, possibly uvular (*ǀǀqõĩ or *ǀǀqʼõĩ?).
Bleek 1956: 584, 585, 625, 626. Polysemy: 'sun / day / thirst'. Quoted as ǀǀõĩ in [Bleek 1929: 81] and [Bleek 2000: 20]. Irregular fluctuation of transcription between glottalic and simple velar articulation of the click efflux is the same as in ǀXam and suggests a "non-trivial" type of original articulation.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 117. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. In [Bleek 1929: 81], two forms are quoted: ǀǀõĩ and ǀǀʼuːn; both of them are confirmed in [Bleek 1956: 584, 628]. It is not clear if these are two different words or dialectal variants. Likewise, neither of the forms can be equated with Lanham & Hallowes' ǀǀumi, although external comparison shows them to be more archaic in shape than ǀǀumi.
ǀ'Auni:ǀɛ̃́ ~ ǀɛn2
Bleek 1937: 210. Polysemy: 'sun / day'. Quoted as ǀɛ́ ~ ǀɛn in [Bleek 1956: 307]; as ǀẽː in [Bleek 1929: 81]. The latter source also adds a different synonym, ǀǀoi, not found in [Bleek 1937]. It corresponds to the general !Wi root for 'sun', but, since [Bleek 1929] is a generally unreliable source, we do not include ǀǀoi in our calculations - it could have been included by mistake, or represent a dialectal archaism, or, quite likely, a borrowing from Nǀuu.
ǀHaasi:ǀʼi2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀʼũĩ
Distribution: Preserved throughout Narrow !Wi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǀǀʼoːeː 'sun' [Bleek 1958: 625]. Replacements: In Lower Nǂossob, the original root (whose archaicity is confirmed by external comparison with Taa languages) is replaced with *ǀ(ʼ)e ~ *ǀ(ʼ)i, a from that closely resembles the Common !Wi equivalent for 'fire' q.v.; however, we hesitate to postulate a lexical merger, since the actual recorded forms for 'fire' in ǀʼAuni and ǀHaasi are phonetically different. Reconstruction shape: The majority of the languages agree upon the phonetic shape *ǀǀʼũĩ ~ *ǀǀʼõẽ (it is not yet clear if the diphthongs ui and oe were opposed in Proto-!Wi or if they were mere phonetic variants). The only major dissenting form is ǀǀXegwi ǀǀumi, the way it is transcribed in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956]; assuming secondary labialization of the nasal under the influence of the preceding vowel, an earlier variant *ǀǀuni may not only indicate that *ǀǀʼũĩ is the result of consonantal lenition, but would also better agree with external parallels in Taa (cf. !Xóõ ǀǀʼân 'sun'). However, the lack of glottal efflux is rather confusing, as is the attestation of the variant ǀǀõĩ in ǀǀXegwi by D. Bleek. Such ambiguity of the data implies that one should probably adopt the "majority rule" here, and suspend amending the reconstruction from the widely supported *ǀǀʼũĩ to the ǀǀXegwi-supported *ǀǀʼuni until a detailed reconstruction of Proto-!Wi is produced.
Bleek 1956: 686. Quoted as ʘxu in [Bleek 1929: 82], along with the allegedly synonymous form gaːn = gːáːn [Bleek 1956: 43]. Both forms are only attested sporadically in W. Bleek's records. We choose the former as primary due to its being illustrated with an actual contextual example (ha-g ɳǀe kui ʘxuː u !ʌhí tiŋ !waː "he swam on top of the water"), but its status is questionable all the same.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Story 1999: 23. The prefix i= may be possessive ('his tail').
Proto-!Wi:*ǀa- #
Distribution: Preserved only in ǀHaasi, as may be established from external comparison. Replacements: The situation here is complicated. On the Narrow !Wi level (ǀXam + Nǀuu + ǀǀXegwi), the reconstruction *!ʰi 'tail' may be proposed beyond reasonable doubt. If this form could somehow be shown as related to ǀʼAuni ǂwi, it would have constituted the optimal candidate for the Proto-!Wi level. However, ǀʼAuni ǂ-never corresponds to Narrow !Wi !-, and a transcriptional error in this case is not highly likely (as a rule, it is old ǂ that gets mistranscribed as !, very rarely vice versa). If so, we have three distributionally permissible candidates for Proto-!Wi tail: Narrow !Wi *!ʰi, ǀʼAuni *ǂui, and ǀHaasi *ǀa-. On their own merits, Narrow !Wi *!ʰi would be preferable because of the largest chronological depth of reconstruction, but in the light of external comparison, it is ǀHaasi *ǀa- that has the best outside parallels in the Taa branch of South Khoisan - !Xóõ sg. ǀàũ, pl. ǀã̀ 'tail'. Because of this, the currently optimal scenario is to postulate preservation of archaic 'tail' in ǀHaasi, with independent replacements in ǀʼAuni and in Proto-Narrow !Wi. The nature of these replacements, however, remains unclear. Reconstruction shape: Since there are no !Wi parallels for the ǀHaasi form, we just tentatively project it onto the proto-level.
NUMBER:85
WORD:that
ǀXam:ǀeː ~ ǀe #1
Bleek 1956: 306. Transcribed as ǀeː ~ ǀèː ~ ǀɛː by W. Bleek. Correct definition of demonstrative pronouns in ǀXam is problematic, since reliable grammatical descriptions are lacking, most dictionary information is contradictory, and most of the textual examples inconclusive. ǀXam ǀe is almost certainly a stem that is used to indicate a far degree of deixis; however, it is glossed in [Bleek 1956] as "there, yonder, far, that, here", and the only textual example that is fully satisfactory for GLD standards is (from L. Lloyd's records) ɳǀa-kki ʘho ǀe "give me that piece of wood". The same stem is quoted in [Bleek 1929: 83] as ǀeː-á, most likely a compound of ǀeː with another deictic stem, a ~ e (see under 'this'). Unfortunately, no diagnostic contexts have been detected that would contrast 'this' and 'that' within one sentence. Another quasi-synonymous form in [Bleek 1929: 83] is ha, but it is glossed as "this, that" in [Bleek 1956: 55], with no possibility of evaluating the actual meaning.
Bleek 1956: 4. Listed as the first or default equivalent for 'that' both in [Bleek 2000: 20] and [Bleek 1929: 84], as opposed to a prosodically unmarked a 'this' q.v. The latter source lists three additional synonyms: (a) he, which is not confirmed in either [Bleek 1956] or [Bleek 2000]; (b) ɳǀeá, most likely a misprint for ɳǀǀe=á ([Bleek 2000: 20]; [Bleek 1956: 618]), a form which is best analyzed as a compound of a neutral-deictic stem ɳǀǀe with the far-deixis stem á (cf. the same situation for 'this' q.v.); (c) ǀǀŋ-á, most likely a contracted variant form of ɳǀǀe-a.
Ziervogel 1955: 55. The first morpheme is either a copula or a neutral deictic stem; the opposition between 'this' and 'that' is formed by the second component of the expression, cf. 'this'. In [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 110], the form ʔeta is defined as the "rarest" of all demonstrative pronouns; no differences in degree of deixis are indicated between the three demonstrative pronouns ʔena, ʔela, ʔeta. D. Bleek gives ha as the main deictic stem ([Bleek 1929: 83]; [Bleek 1956: 55]); however, it does not really function as a demonstrative adjective, but rather as a general pronominal proclitic.
Bleek 1937: 202; Bleek 1956: 55. Only the variants he and hi are quoted in [Bleek 1929: 83]. According to [Bleek 1937: 197], the same word functions as the main 3rd p. sg. pronoun ('he', 'she', 'it'). The fluctuating vocalism most likely reflects contraction with nominal class markers.
ǀHaasi:cɔː-a5
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible because of the highly unstable nature of the etyma and possible inaccuracies in available descriptions.
Bleek 1956: 4. Transcribed as a ~ aː by W. Bleek. There is also a different vocalic variant: eː, said to refer "to nouns in the pl. and to those in the sing. which take he, hi, instead of ha in the 3rd pers. sing." [Bleek 1956: 36]. This means that a(ː) and e(ː) both represent contractions of a basic deictic stem *V (vocalism not defined) with different class markers, a situation not atypical of other South Khoisan languages as well. Quoted as aː-á ~ aː ~ eː-á ~ eː in [Bleek 1929: 84]. For more details on the ǀXam system of demonstrative pronouns in general see under 'that'.
Bleek 1956: 4. Listed as the first or default equivalent for 'this' both in [Bleek 2000: 20] and [Bleek 1929: 84], as opposed to a prosodically different á 'that' q.v. The allegedly synonymous form ɳǀǀa ([Bleek 1929: 84]; [Bleek 2000: 20]; [Bleek 1956: 612]) is probably a contraction of the adverbial word ɳǀǀa 'here, there' + -a (for more details, see under 'that').
Ziervogel 1955: 55. The first morpheme is either a copula or a neutral deictic stem; the opposition between 'this' and 'that' is formed by the second component of the expression, cf. 'that'. There is also a phonetic variant (or, less probably, a separate synonymous stem) ʔe=na id. [Ziervogel 1955: 55]. Secondary synonym: cela [Ziervogel 1955: 56] (encountered relatively rarely; semantic difference from ʔe=la is unclear). Quoted as ʔila ~ ʔela in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108], with the meaning is given as 'that'; however, Lanham & Hallowes actually fail to spot any semantic differences between ǀǀXegwi demonstrative pronouns (see notes on 'that').
Bleek 1937: 201; Bleek 1956: 4. In the earlier notes in [Bleek 1929: 84], the meaning 'this' is glossed as ti. However, in [Bleek 1937: 206] this word is already explained as part of the expression ti e 'that is, there', with no implications whatsoever about the semantics of "near deixis". Nevertheless, as in the case of nearly all !Wi languages, the data are somewhat controversial, and existing textual examples that never contrast 'this (near)' and 'that (far)' do not help matters much.
ǀHaasi:gʸa-ŋ3
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*a
Distribution: Seemingly preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi and ǀHaasi. Replacements: The forms in ǀǀXegwi and ǀHaasi are not well understood from a historical perspective. Reconstruction shape: The monovocalic root *a generally stays the same in all descendant languages.
Bleek 1956: 3. Emphatic form: a-kǝn, possessive: á-ka. Transcribed as a ~ aː, emphatic form: a-kǝn, possessive: a-kka by W. Bleek. Quoted as a ~ a-a ~ aː-ken in [Bleek 1929: 85].
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Said to be pronounced with low tone, as opposed to ʔa 'not' q.v. with high tone [Ziervogel 1955: 43]. Cf. also the emphatic (absolute) form: ʔa-ʔe; the object form ʔaye ~ ʔai ~ ʔayi; the possessive form ʔaye [Ziervogel 1955: 45-47]. The absolute form is quoted as ʔa-ʔe ~ a-ʔe in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108]. Quoted as a ~ aŋ in [Bleek 1929: 85]; as a, emphatic an, possessive a-ka in [Bleek 1956: 3].
Bleek 1956: 272, 310. Transcribed as ǀʼér̃r̃i ~ ǀér̃r̃iː by W. Bleek (the latter variant, not marking the glottal stop, is rare and probably erroneous). Quoted as ǀʼer̃i ~ ǀʼeni in [Bleek 1929: 86].
Sands et al. 2006. The first variant allegedly reflects the Western dialect, the second corresponds to the Eastern one. Quoted as ǀʼán in [Westphal 1965: 141].
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǀʼanan-si 'tongue' [Bleek 1958: 269]. Reconstruction shape: Initial click *ǀʼ- is preserved everywhere. Vocalic variation between -e- and -a- is most likely caused by dialectal assimilation (*CaCi > CeCi). The old syllabic structure is well preserved in ǀXam and ǀʼAuni, but tends to be simplified in descendant languages (either the final vowel gets dropped or the medial nasal gets "lenited", transforming into nasalized articulation of the surrounding vowels).
Bleek 1956: 574. Plural form: ǀǀʰeǀǀʰẽĩ. Quoted as ǀǀẽĩ, plural: ǀǀẽĩ-ǀǀẽĩ (with reduplication) in [Bleek 1929: 86]. None of the materials distinguish this word from 'horn' q.v., although external data very clearly speak in favour of their separate origin.
Bleek 1956: 551, 567, 568, 571. Plural form: ǀǀeŋǝn ~ ǀǀẽĩŋ ~ ǀǀẽǀǀẽ. Quoted as ǀǀẽĩ, plural ǀǀẽĩǀǀẽĩ in [Bleek 1929: 86]. None of the materials distinguish this word from 'horn' q.v., although external data very clearly speak in favour of their separate origin.
Bleek 1929: 86. Plural form: ǀǀẽĩwa-s. Not attested in later, more reliable, sources, but the entry is believable because of secure external cognates.
Story 1999: 23. Probably a plural form (kʼi= is one of the variants of the plural prefix).
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀʰãĩ
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe kxe 'teeth' [Bleek 1958: 122]; !Gã!ne ǀǀʼĩ-ǀǀʼiŋ 'teeth' [Bleek 1958: 544]. Reconstruction shape: The lateral aspirated click is reconstructed based on ǀXam, Nǀuu, and ǀǀXegwi; in other languages, aspiration may have either disappeared or, more likely, not been noticed by researchers. The nasalized diphthong is preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi (and even there it is still postulated by D. Bleek, if not by Lanham & Hallowes), so it is also reconstructed quite reliably.
Maingard 1937: 256. Meaning glossed as 'wood'; no special lexeme for 'tree' is attested, thus, the entry is somewhat dubious. Cf. also ɡʘōˤ-kē 'firewood' in [Doke 1936: 82].
Miller et al. 2007: 58. Meaning glossed as 'wood'. According to B. Sands, there is no special generic term for 'tree' in the language; the closest term is ǂʼʰiː 'shepherd's bush (Boscia albitrunca)', the plural form of which may possibly be used as a generic term. For the moment (until a published dictionary comes out), it is still reasonable to include the old word for 'wood / (growing) tree' on the list, keeping in mind that this may be an erroneous inclusion. Cf. also ǂʰí 'tree' in [Westphal 1965: 144].
Ziervogel 1955: 36, 42. Quoted as ɳʘòː-zì 'tree' (with specially marked low tone and the singulative suffix -zi) in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 106]. Cf. also, without this suffix, ɳʘoː 'wood', and with the plural suffix -ŋ, ɳʘoː-ŋ 'forest' [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 98, 111]. Quoted as ʘʼʰoː ~ ʘʼʰoː-si, pl. ʘʼʰo-gǝn in [Bleek 1956: 682].
Distribution: Preserved in all languages, but the meaning is frequently restricted to 'wood' as material; this seems to be true in the case of at least ǀHaasi and, possibly, Modern Nǀuu, where the meaning 'tree' has not been explicitly attested for this item. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ʘoː, pl. ʘoː-kn 'tree' [Bleek 1956: 684]. Replacements: External data (in Taa) clearly show that *ʘo used to be applied to 'wood' as material as well as 'tree' as a living organism. However, similarity of the attested situations in ǀHaasi and Nǀuu (representing both subbranches of !Wi) shows that already on the Proto-!Wi level, the word *ǂʼʰi 'Boscia albitrunca' may have been used as a generic term with specific reference to living trees. On the other hand, the related forms found in [Bleek 1956], e. g. ǀXam !ʰi 'umbrella-top tree, witgatboom' [Bleek 1956: 426], etc., always refer to the precise tree species, and there are also explicit textual cases where the old form *ʘo is found referring to living trees. Keeping this in mind, we have to treat the situations in Modern Nǀuu and ǀHaasi as lexical replacements: {'shepherd's tree' > 'tree (gen.)'}. Reconstruction shape: The only thing that is not easily reconstructible for this form is the click efflux. In old data collections, almost every possible variant is attested (zero efflux, aspirated efflux, aspirated glottalized efflux, voiced efflux, nasal efflux, etc.), which should probably be interpreted as the original presence of some rare type of efflux, simplifying in different ways in different languages and phonetically misinterpreted by inexperienced researchers in others. External data (e. g. !Xóõ ʼɳʘà-ye with a preglottalized nasalized efflux) indirectly validate that interpretation as well. However, until more examples become available, we prefer to refrain from making the reconstruction too complex and tentatively choose the simplest variant, attested in Modern Nǀuu (with the zero efflux). Semantics and structure: Should be reconstructed with the polysemy 'tree / wood'.
Bleek 1956: 448, 492. Transcribed as !úː ~ !ʼuː by W. Bleek. Quoted as !úː in [Bleek 1929: 88]. Fluctuation between simple and glottalized articulation for the click efflux in W. Bleek's records is hardly accidental or erroneous in the light of similar fluctuations in between other South Khoisan languages as well; for ǀXam, this may signify a "non-trivial" type of click efflux articulation.
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Quoted as kʼuː ~ ɕʼuː 'be two' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115]. Quoted as ǀǀuː in [Bleek 1929: 88]; as ǀǀu ~ ǀǀʼu in [Bleek 1956: 591, 627].
ǀ'Auni:ǀam-1
Bleek 1937: 209; Bleek 1956: 299. Correctly identified as a Nama borrowing. Quoted as ǀʌm in [Bleek 1929: 88].
ǀHaasi:s=ǀǀaː-maː2
Story 1999: 23. Composition of this numeral is unclear. The main root morpheme is probably ǀǀaː.
Proto-!Wi:*!uʔ-
Distribution: Preserved in all Narrow !Wi languages. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau !ʼuː, ǀǀKuǀǀe !ʼu [Bleek 1956: 492]. Replacements: (a) In ǀʼAuni, the original numeral was replaced by a borrowing from Nama; (b) internal composition of the form s=ǀǀaː-maː in ǀHaasi is unclear; the sequence s=ǀǀaː- can only reflect some sort of fused compound (*sV- + *ǀǀa-), but there are no definite ideas on what the separate parts might go back to. If this is indeed a complex idiomatic expression, it is clearly not archaic. Reconstruction shape: The word is commonly attested either in the variant !u or in the variant !ʼu; sometimes both variants seem to be in "free variation" within the same language. This indicates either some uncommon type of efflux or an original combination of a non-glottalized efflux with a medial glottal stop (thus, *!uʔ- could either be misheard as *!ʼu-, or the glottal stop could genuinely undergo "metathesis"). See similar cases with 'one', 'sit', etc.
Bleek 1956: 512, 519. Transcribed as ǀǀʼaː ~ ǀǀʼa ~ ǀǀʼa-kǝn ~ ǀǀʼaŋ ~ ǀǀʼe ~ ǀǀʼeː ~ ǀǀʼɛː by W. Bleek. Quoted as ǀǀʼe ~ ǀǀʼaː in [Bleek 1929: 42]. This is quite clearly the basic verb to designate beginning of movement towards an object, e. g.: ŋ ǀǀʼa ha toːi 'I go to that ostrich', etc. Vocalic fluctuation is typical of most basic monosyllabic verbal stems and may reflect either contextual phonetic variation or merger with class markers. Another quasi-synonym listed in [Bleek 1929: 42] is tàiˤ ~ tã̀ẽˤ, but textual examples in [Bleek 1956: 187] confirm rather strongly that the basic meaning of this verb is 'to walk' (i. e. with emphasis on the process of movement) rather than the required semantics of 'go'.
Bleek 1956: 513. Quoted as ǀǀʼa in [Bleek 1929: 42] and [Bleek 2000: 20]. Two more variants in [Bleek 1929: 42] are not confirmed in [Bleek 1956]: !eya is actually 'to bring' and ǀǀʼana is not found at all (it is probably just a different variant of ǀǀʼa with a postpositional particle).
Maingard 1937: 247, 257. Secondary synonym: ɕxan [Maingard 1937: 245], unsupported by data from other sources. Distinct from tãĩ 'to walk' [Maingard 1937: 257].
Ziervogel 1955: 36, 39. Past tense form is quoted as ǀǀaː-ya [Ziervogel 1955: 51]. There is a second quasi-synonymous root: tʼãʔã-ne [Ziervogel 1955: 50, 60, 61] = tʼaʔa ~ tʼaʔan [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118]. It is also listed as the main equivalent for 'go' in [Bleek 1929: 42], as teʌn ~ anteʌn (the second variant is contracted with a verbal or pronominal proclitic). However, comparative analysis of sources shows that the basic semantics of this second verb is more complex. Cf. the following examples with their (obviously, approximate) translations: !ʰoa antean "the cow goes away" [Bleek 1956: 10]; n tean "I walk", ha tean "she goes away", teaːni "run away" [Bleek 1956: 197]. Also, Ziervogel always gives the meaning 'walk' for this root; its external connections also confirm such meanings as 'go away', 'depart', 'travel'. Consequently, we prefer to exclude this lexeme from our calculations.
Bleek 1937: 214, 215; Bleek 1956: 513, 519, 545. The variety of variants indicates that the original form may have been *ǀǀaʔa. Not listed in [Bleek 1929: 42], with two other quasi-synonyms suggested instead: (1) taãĩ, glossed in [Bleek 1937: 206] as tãĩ ~ tai ~ taãĩ 'to walk, to go'; its general semantics seems to be more or less the same as the one of its cognate in ǀǀXegwi, q.v.; (2) !uŋ, probably a marginal borrowing from a Central Khoisan language (cf. Proto-Central Khoisan *!ũ 'to go').
Story 1999: 22. Secondary synonym: tʸá-ai id. [ibid.]. This second word etymologically coincides with ǀʼAuni taãĩ and must probably reflect the same semantics ('walk' rather than 'go').
Proto-!Wi:*ǀǀʼa-
Distribution: Preserved in all languages, except for ǀHaasi. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKxau ǀǀʼa ~ ǀǀʼaː ~ ǀǀʼaŋ ~ ǀǀʼa-i [Bleek 1956: 513]. Replacements: The provenance of ǀHaasi ǂa is unclear. There is a possibility that it is really an inaccurate transcription of *ǀǀʼa, but this is not highly likely (no other evident examples of misinterpreting ǀǀ- as ǂ- may be drawn from Story's vocabulary). Reconstruction shape: The majority of attested variants allows to reconstruct Proto-!Wi *ǀǀʼa- 'to go' without controversy. There are, however, some variants without the glottal efflux (e. g. in ǀǀXegwi) that are not so easily explainable. Semantics and structure: In Proto-!Wi, *ǀǀʼa- 'to go' was most likely opposed to *taˤ- ~ *taˤ-iŋ 'to walk' (without a specific direction).
NUMBER:93
WORD:warm (hot)
ǀXam:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 48] the meaning 'to be hot' is translated as tã ǀʼi, literally 'to feel fire', but textual examples in [Bleek 1956: 292] do not explicitly confirm this idiom as the main antonym for 'cold'. For 'warm', [Bleek 1929: 90] yields !uːi = 'to burn, smart, ache' (see 'ashes' for more details), but this is probably incorrect; examples in [Bleek 1956: 449] clearly indicate negative semantic connotations ('burnt', 'aching', etc.) rather than the required positive associations. The likeliest candidate for ǀXam 'warm' is kːáˤo (L. Lloyd), kːauːˤ ~ kːauˤ-kːáuˤ (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 80], but a convenient equivalent for 'hot' is still missing.
ǀǀNg!ke:ǀǀoˤnaˤ #1
Bleek 1956: 586. Quoted as ǀǀoːnàːˤ in [Bleek 1929: 48], ǀǀonà in [Bleek 2000: 20]. The item is not quite trustworthy, being attested in but one example: ǀǀõẽ ǀǀoˤnaˤ "the sun is hot" [Bleek 1956: 586]; for contrast, cf. ǀǀõĩ haiːi "the sun is warm" [Bleek 1956: 56]. It is not clear just how reliable these particular translations are.
Maingard 1937: 243. Attested in the phrase ǀǀʼũĩ ɕeŋ hãː-i "the sun is hot". Transcribed as háːʔī in [Doke 1936: 63], with the meaning glossed as 'warm'.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102. Attested in the phrase iŋ kʰuru-wa "I am warm". It is unclear whether ǀǀXegwi had a precise distinction between the meanings 'warm' and 'hot'. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955]. Quoted as kuruwa 'warm' in [Bleek 1929: 90] and as kurúwa 'to be warm' in [Bleek 1956: 107].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of reliable attestation in some languages and lexical instability in others.
Bleek 1956: 427, 431, 457. Transcribed as !ʰoaː ~ !ʰwàː ~ !wa by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʰwaː in [Bleek 1929: 90]. See under 'rain' for more details on this stem.
Bleek 1956: 394, 402, 423, 572. Emphatic forms: !ʼʰa-gǝn ~ !ʼʰa-ke ~ !ʼʰaːŋ ~ !aː-gǝn ~ !aːŋ. Quoted as !ʰaː in [Bleek 1929: 90]. Phonological variation between !ʰaː ~ !ʼʰa also acknowledged in [Bleek 2000: 18]; it may be partially due to failure to distinguish between phonetically similar 'water' and 'rain' q.v., partially to non-trivial articulation of the click efflux (cf. the presence of uvular aspirated articulation in the professionally recorded correlate for present day Nǀuu).
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Quoted as qʰaː in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 106]. An entirely different form, šaː, with a rare plural variant šaː-ŋ, is also quoted in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102, 111]. According to the authors, "the two forms... are not synonymous, but the precise difference in significance has not been accurately determined" [ibid.]. Both of these synonymous or quasi-synonymous forms are also attested in [Bleek 1929: 90] as ǀǀʰaː and šaː (without the erroneously transcribed lateral click, cf. kʰaː 'to water' [ibid.]). Quoted as kʰaː ~ ǀǀʰa in [Bleek 1956: 88, 572] (this time, both variants are quoted in the nominal meaning 'water'); as ša in [Bleek 1956: 177].
Analysis of the few available textual contexts shows that kʰaː may, perhaps, rather refer to 'drinking water', whereas ša denotes 'basin water', cf.: (a) n ǀoːwa, kʰaː n ǀeo "I am thirsty, water is wanting" [Bleek 1956: 88]; sa ne kʰaː "give me water" [Ziervogel 1955: 46]; (b) kan ǀǀowa ke e ša "he stands in the water" [Bleek 1956: 177]; iɲa šaː gi=tʼama "I am handsome", literally "I am the water of Lake Chrissie" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 117] (but also a-me ʔa=xʼẽĩ šaː "do not drink water" [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 116]; context unknown, perhaps "do not drink lake-water"?).
Bleek 1937: 203; Bleek 1956: 88. Meaning glossed simply as 'water', whereas for the alleged click-containing variant ǀǀʰàːa [Bleek 1937: 216] the meaning is glossed as 'water, rain'. This, as well as the uniqueness of the "variation" and, possibly, the difference in tonal characteristics, brings on the suspicion that we are actually dealing with two etymologically different words: kʰá 'water' and ǀǀʰà 'rain, rain-water'. However, in [Bleek 1956: 572], ǀǀʰàːa is encountered once in the context "he drinks water" (whereas 'rain', without textual examples, is transcribed as ǀǀʰàːˤa with additional pharyngealization, making the picture even more confusing). In [Bleek 1929: 90], 'water' is simply written as ǀǀʰa, without any non-click variants. Allegedly, this could be a transcriptional error (particularly if the original consonant, as in ǀǀXegwi, was actually a uvular qʰ-).
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: The form of this word in Modern Nǀuu, with its uvular aspirated click efflux, can be viewed as archaic (uvular articulation is further confirmed by ǀǀXegwi qʰaː in the transcription of Lanham & Hallowes). Deletion of click influx in ǀǀXegwi is perfectly regular (cf. 'road', etc.), however, the situation with the Lower Nǂossob branch is less clear, because normally the alveolar click there is preserved. Most likely, we are dealing here with a sporadic process of click loss, possibly determined by context (e. g. click loss before a former uvular efflux?).
Bleek 1956: 168; Bleek 1929: 90. Exclusive stem. In [Bleek 2000: 21], besides the regular si, an alternate variant ci is also mentioned, but is not confirmed in any other sources.
Ziervogel 1955: 46. Cf. also the emphatic (absolute) form: ʔi-ʔe; the object form ʔiye ~ ye; the possessive form ye [Ziervogel 1955: 45-47]. The absolute form is quoted as ʔi-ʔe ~ i-ʔe in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 108]. Quoted as i in [Bleek 1929: 90] and [Bleek 1956: 67]. According to all known sources, there is no distinction between inclusive and exclusive pronouns in ǀǀXegwi.
Story 1999: 24. Not listed in the vocabulary, but cf.: ci ɑ̀ kʼi=ʘwiː "we eat meat". Probably an exclusive stem (although Story does not elicit such an opposition explicitly).
Proto-!Wi:*si
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀǀXegwi, where the old inclusive/exclusive opposition seems to have been neutralized in favor of the original inclusive pronoun. Reconstruction shape: The form *si is attested almost everywhere without change; Lower Nǂossob ci has to be regarded as a "fortition" (cf. the same situation with 'sit', etc.).
Bleek 1956: 67. Emphatic form: i-i ~ i-tǝn, possessive form: i ~ i-ta. Transcribed as i ~ iː, possessive form: i-ka by W. Bleek. Quoted as i ~ i-i ~ iː-tǝn in [Bleek 1929: 90]. Inclusive stem.
Bleek 1956: 67; Bleek 2000: 21. Inclusive stem. The rare variant e is also mentioned in [Bleek 1929: 90] and confirmed in [Bleek 1956: 36], said to be "only used before particle he".
Story 1999: 32. Cf.: i cʼau kʸɛ "we milk them". The stem is probably inclusive (considering external data). Story's vocabulary gives the equivalent for 'we' as i-tʸóː a [Story 1999: 23], where a is probably a verbal copula, and tʸóː is some sort of emphatic morpheme.
Proto-!Wi:*i
Distribution: Preserved in all languages. Reconstruction shape: Monovocalic *i is preserved everywhere and is automatically projected onto the proto-level.
Bleek 1956: 23, 210. This interrogative pronoun is a transparent compound of cʼa 'thing' [ibid.] + basic interrogative morpheme de (L. Lloyd, W. Bleek: dːé). In [Bleek 1929: 91] a whole bunch of different variants is quoted: cʼa=dɛ ~ cʼa=ba ~ xa=dɛ ~ -ba ~ -dɛ. However, textual examples in [Bleek 1956] rather suggest that ba and xa represent auxiliary clitics whose exact meaning is difficult to establish; only de (dɛ) comes through clearly as the main interrogative morpheme in ǀXam. See also 'who'.
Bleek 1956: 26, 46, 93, 279. Quoted as kisi in [Bleek 1929: 91]; the alternate variant, -dʸe, is incorrectly given as a synonym, because this postpositional lexeme is generally used as an adverbial interrogative ('where?', etc.; see [Bleek 2000: 23]). The forms are clearly polymorphemic in origin and may be analyzed as reflecting an original *di-si, where di- is the interrogative component (= -dʸe 'where?'; consonantal alternation dʸ- ~ g- ~ k- reflects palatalization of the original dental) and -si is either a fossilized deictic stem or the remnant of an older word meaning 'thing'. What remains completely obscure is the click-containing variant ɡǀi-si. Considering Bleek's remark that speakers of the language occasionally drop clicks and the multiple examples that confirm this, one would be tempted to posit *ɡǀi as the original form, and gi ~ ki as its later permutations. External data, however, speak very strongly against such a solution: no click-containing interrogatives are found anywhere in South Khoisan (except for ǀHaasi). The form is more likely to represent some obscure contraction with another morpheme or, perhaps, a rare case of secondary ("expressive"?) click formation.
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:ǀʰa ~ ǀi2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀ-
Distribution: The old interrogative morpheme seems to have only been preserved in the Lower Nǂossob branch (this is primarily supported by external comparison with Taa languages), or, to be more precise, only in ǀHaasi, since the situation in ǀʼAuni is unknown. Replacements: The main interrogative morpheme in Narrow !Wi is *TV, where T = coronal explosive (usually voiced d, less frequently voiceless t or aspirated tʰ) and V is usually a front vowel (e or i). It is usually combined with additional morphemes, such as ǀXam cʼa 'thing', to express the meaning 'what?' (= 'which-thing?'). However, this morpheme finds no parallels in the Lower Nǂossob data, where the basic equivalent for 'what?' has (in ǀHaasi) the structure "dental click with zero efflux + vowel", which is furthermore corroborated by external data (Taa). Because of these external parallels, it makes more sense to postulate a replacement in Narrow !Wi, although its nature remains obscure at the moment.
Bleek 1956: 450. Transcribed as !úi-ta by W. Bleek. Quoted as !úiːta in [Bleek 1929: 91]. The latter source adds two secondary synonyms: (a) ǀkʼɔːwa = ǀoːˤwa ~ ǀxʼóːˤwa (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 321]; (b) ǀǀxàˤŋ-ǀǀxàˤŋ = ǀǀxáˤŋ-ǀǀxáˤŋ (L. Lloyd) [Bleek 1956: 632]. Item (a) is represented by two dubious textual examples and glossed as 'pale', 'red' (!) in [Bleek 1956]; item (b) is accompanied by only one equally dubious example. Examples for !ui-ta are more numerous and definitive, cf. ha ǀǀitǝn xʼauki tʌm ʘwa !úita, hi-ta !úitǝn-!úitakǝn ǀǀeǀǀeːya !ʰwaitǝn "its juice is not a little white, its whiteness resembles milk" [Bleek 1956: 450] etc.
Maingard 1937: 243. Also transcribed with facultative prenasalization (as ɳ!ʼuɾi-ya). The word has no known parallels within South Khoisan and is best regarded as a straightforward borrowing from Khoekhoe (cf. Nama !ʼuri 'white').
Nǀuu:!ʼuri-a-1
Sands et al. 2006. See notes on ǂKhomani.
ǀǀXegwi:ša3
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Quoted as šaː 'be white' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 115].
Not properly reconstructible due to lack of attestation in some languages, transparent borrowed origins in others, and instability in the remaining ones.
Bleek 1956: 447 (quoted there in the emphatic variant: !u=de-kǝn). Quoted as !u=dɛ xa (with an extra particle) in [Bleek 1929: 91]. Like the corresponding inanimate pronoun, a clear compound of !u(i) 'person' q.v. with the basic interrogative morpheme =de; there is also a suppletive plural stem !e=dɛ xa [Bleek 1929: 91].
Bleek 1956: 240. Highly uncertain; attested only in one example - tú e sɛ kia "who comes there?" ([Bleek 1956: 240]; [Bleek 2000: 23]), in which D. Bleek sees three out of four morphemes ("tu e followed by ki") constituting a single interrogative complex. The first morpheme, tu, is almost certainly related to tu 'man' q.v., meaning that the original interrogative morpheme is either e or ki(a). On the other hand, comparison with ǂKhomani data shows that ǀǀNg!ke's closest linguistic relatives already treat tu- as the main interrogative segment, and this may have been the case in ǀǀNg!ke as well.
Maingard 1937: 247. The suffixal component -xai is frequently met in interrogatives, although its function is not quite clear. Transcribed as ɕúxāi in [Doke 1936: 71].
Ziervogel 1955: 36. Quoted as towa, pl. twa-ŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 118].
ǀ'Auni:sa #3
Bleek 1937: 197. Only attested in the composite interrogative sa-ka 'whose?', where -ka is the general possessive particle, so it may be assumed that sa is simply 'who?'.
Bleek 1956: 268. Emphatic form: ǀʼaːi-ti-kǝn. Transcribed as ǀʼáːi-ti ~ ǀʼaːi-tye ~ ǀʼái-tyi, emphatic form: ǀʼaːiː-ti-kǝn by W. Bleek. Also attested in the same meaning is the compound form !wi ǀʼai-ti, literally 'person-woman' [Bleek 1956: 466]. Internal structure of the lexeme must be complex (otherwise, it would violate the basic rules of Khoisan phonotactics), although the element -ti is not known to be a productive suffix in ǀXam. The "bare" root, however, may be seen not as ǀʼai, but rather as simply ǀʼa, since it is also found in the compound form !wi ǀʼa 'girl' [Bleek 1956: 267]. The plural form is suppletive: ǀáː-gǝn (L. Lloyd), ǀáː-gǝn, emphatic form: ǀáː-ka-kǝn (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 296] (an entirely different root, since the click effluxes do not match).
Bleek 1956: 268, 274, 278; Bleek 1929: 92. The phonetic variation between -ti and -ki reflects one and the same phoneme (a palatal stop); the variation between click effluxes (glottal stop vs. voiced articulation) is harder to understand. The plural form, as in ǀXam, is suppletive: ǀa-gǝn ~ ǀaː-gǝn [Bleek 1956: 296]; cf. also ǀaŋ id. ([Bleek 1956: 300]; in [Bleek 1929: 92], this form is mentioned as singular, but the only textual example in [Bleek 1956] gives a plural usage). As in ǀXam, the "bare" root ǀʼa is discovered in bound forms: cf. ǀǀe ǀʼa 'girl', ǀǀõẽːn ǀʼaː 'old woman' [Bleek 1956: 268].
Maingard 1937: 239, 253. Functions both as the independent noun 'woman' and the semi-suffix 'female', attached to names of animals (e. g. !ai ǀʼaiɕe 'female gemsbok', etc.). Transcribed as ǀēiɕī in [Doke 1936: 63].
Ziervogel 1955: 36. Distinct from gyeiŋ, pl. gyaŋ 'female' [Ziervogel 1955: 44] (the same word is quoted as qʼiŋ, phonetically [qʼǝiŋ] 'be a female' in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 99]). Cf., however, also the phrase haː kwi-qʼiŋ "it is a woman" in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102]), where kwi-qʼiŋ literally = 'person + female'. D. Bleek's data on this Swadesh item are confusing. In [Bleek 1929: 92], 'woman' is translated as ǀǀxeːn, pl. ǀǀaː-ze. The first form, re-quoted as ǀǀxeːŋ in [Bleek 1956: 635], may represent a corruption of *qʼiŋ 'female'. The second form is a priori dubious as a "plural" form, since -ze (= Ziervogel's -zi) is, by definition, a suffixal morpheme with a singulative meaning. In [Bleek 1956], we find two entries in its place: (a) ǀʼaːze 'woman' [Bleek 1956: 271] = Ziervogel's ǀazi; (b) ǀǀʼaː-si ~ ǀǀʼa-kǝn 'woman, female', e. g. in ǀǀwi ǀǀʼaːsi "female dog", !xa-ǀʼi ǀǀʼakǝn "female sheep" [Bleek 1956: 517]. The examples show that the meaning of the root ǀǀʼa- is rather 'female' than 'woman' per se, but it is definitely a different word from qʼiŋ. One possible source is borrowing from a Central Khoisan source, although the Proto-Central Khoisan root *ɡǀǀae 'female' has a different click efflux.
Bleek 1937: 210. Plural form: ǀan. Quoted as ǀɛ̃ in [Bleek 1929: 92]; as ǀẽ, pl. ǀʌn in [Bleek 1956: 307]. Meaning glossed as 'woman, female' in all sources. Cf. also ɡǀeː-ki 'wife, woman' [Bleek 1937: 209] - a formation from the same root.
Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, albeit in different morphological variants. Additionally, cf. ǀǀKuǀǀe ǀʼaː-ti 'woman'; ǀǀKxau ǀa-ti ~ ǀa-u, pl. ǀaː-kn [Bleek 1956: 270, 302]. Reconstruction shape: The situation here is tricky. The paradigm that is reliably attested in Modern Nǀuu allegedly reflects a simple plural stem *ǀa- and a "diphthongized" singular stem *ǀa-i- (> *ǀe-). However, it is impossible to ignore the evidence from old records of ǀXam and ǀǀNg!ke, where the plural *ǀa- is opposed to singular *ǀʼa-i-, with a glottalized rather than a zero click efflux. Since the evidence comes from several different sources, it cannot be attributed to mistaken transcriptions: either we deal with some kind of old suppletivism (*ǀʼa- 'woman' vs. *ǀa- 'women', with subsequent mergers in several languages), or with the results of morphophonological processes (e. g. the singular form could have originally been *ǀa-ʔV, with subsequent transposition of glottalic articulation to the click efflux; however, such a "suffix" would remain unclear). Currently, we just list both variants as potentially reconstructible for the proto-stage.
NUMBER:100
WORD:yellow
ǀXam:
Not attested properly, although cf. ǀainya in [Bleek 1929: 94] = ǀaːiːn ~ ǀaːiːn-ya (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 297]; see under 'green' on the dubious character of this word (the only example for the meaning 'yellow' is ha cʼaxéitǝn doaˤ ǀainya au tukǝn di "his eyes were yellow with angry actions", which certainly does not qualify as diagnostic).
Bleek 1956: 299. Quoted as ǀàla in [Bleek 1929: 94]. Somewhat dubious, since the word is not backed by any textual examples to verify its exact meaning.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:
Not attested.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:!aː2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Bleek 1956: 579. Transcribed as ǀǀʰwéi-tǝn by W. Bleek. Secondary synonym: táŋ [Bleek 1956: 291], attested only in W. Bleek's records and quoted as taŋ in [Bleek 1929: 37]. The latter source also adds ǀeː as one more synonym, but this word is glossed as 'there, yonder, far, that, here' in [Bleek 1956: 306] and clearly represents a pronominal deictic stem rather than a separate adjective (see under 'that' for more details).
Bleek 1956: 60. Quoted as hǝrú in [Bleek 1929: 37]. Secondary synonym: !wéin-ya ([Bleek 1956: 464]; [Bleek 1929: 37]). The exact difference between the two words is unclear (cf. ŋ ǀǀŋ héru ɳǀǀa "my house is far", but sa a !wéinya "the eland is far" [Bleek 1956: 60, 464]).
Maingard 1957: 268. Extracted from a phrase in which the word is transcribed as ŋhaɾu; however, the initial ŋ- is likely to represent a sandhi-type development (in the VP ɳǀãũ-(ŋ)haɾu "marry far").
Bleek 1929: 37; Bleek 1956: 585. The same sources also list the probably related form ǀǀũĩ, glossed as 'far' in [Bleek 1929: 37] and as 'very far' in [Bleek 1956: 591]. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955] or any of Lanham & Hallowes' papers, therefore, somewhat dubious.
Distribution: Preserved in ǀXam, possibly in ǀǀXegwi and also potentially in ǀHaasi. Replacements: In this situation, there are two potential candidates for Proto-!Wi 'far'. The most obvious one would be *haru, an isogloss between the Nǀuu cluster and ǀʼAuni. However, areal influence of Nǀuu on ǀʼAuni is well confirmed by numerous other cases, and this particular case could also simply reflect a Nǀuu borrowing into ǀʼAuni. On the other hand, the main attested equivalent for 'far' in ǀXam may easily be correlated with the form in ǀǀXegwi (dubious because of scarce attestation, but attested nonetheless), and perhaps even with ǀHaasi n=!wĩ, assuming that the alveolar click in ǀHaasi was erroneously mistranscribed instead of the lateral one (admittedly, this is a somewhat feeble assumption, since no confirming examples of such confusion have been found). The clinching argument here is external comparison: Proto-!Wi *ǀǀoe is compatible with Taa forms (!Xóõ ǀǀqái 'far away', etc.), confirming that Nǀuu haru should be seen as an innovation in the meaning 'far', and that ǀʼAuni háru is either an independent innovation as well, or, more likely, a borrowing from Nǀuu. Reconstruction shape: It is unclear whether the nasalization (such as found in ǀǀXegwi ǀǀũĩ, etc.) is an inherent part of the root here or the result of contraction with a nasal suffix; external comparison would rather suggest the latter.
Bleek 1956: 472. Quoted as ɳ!ã̀ĩ in [Bleek 1929: 46]. In [Bleek 1956], the word is presented as polysemous: 'to be big / much / many / strong / heavy', with the meaning 'heavy' represented by only one textual example: ǂʼwi ɳ!ãĩˤ "the eggshell is heavy". Considering that in the meanings 'big, many, much' (see notes on 'many' for these meanings) the word is transcribed without pharyngealization, this may be a case of partial homophony rather than polysemy.
Not reconstructible due to relative scarcity of attestation and instability.
NUMBER:103
WORD:near
ǀXam:!ʼʰiːŋ ~ !ʼʰiːŋ-ya #1
Bleek 1956: 397. Transcribed as !ʼʰiːŋ ~ !ʼʰeːn-ya by W. Bleek. Quoted as !ʼʰiːŋ in [Bleek 1929: 60]. The latter source also quotes the predicative stem ɡ!weːsiŋ 'to be near'; in [Bleek 1956: 391-392] it is already segmented into ɡ!weː 'to sling on, pass across, be opposite to, near to' + siŋ 'to sit, stay', and the basic meaning of the first stem is rather 'to be opposite to smth.' than 'to be near to smth.'. More problematic is the additional synonym ʘwurru ~ ʘwurru-kǝn (L. Lloyd), ʘurru (W. Bleek) [Bleek 1956: 684, 686], also translated as 'to be near'; although it is not mentioned in [Bleek 1929], it is formally eligible for inclusion.
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested properly. In [Bleek 1929: 60], two equivalents are listed: (a) kí, revealed in [Bleek 1956: 91] as a general morpheme indicating near deixis ('here'); (b) ɳǀǀa, whose real meaning is 'to stay', 'to be somewhere' [Bleek 1956: 611].
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǂʼeː2
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'be close, be nearby'.
ǀǀXegwi:tʼanaŋ3
Ziervogel 1955: 47. Attested in the phrase ʔe ʔi tʼanaŋ "near us", literally "at our near" (i. e. the word syntactically behaves like a noun).
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to relative scarcity of attestation and instability.
NUMBER:104
WORD:salt
ǀXam:ǂkʼòː1
Bleek 1956: 662. Quoted as ǂóː in [Bleek 1929: 71].
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǂxʼoː1
Miller et al. 2007: 60. Secondary synonym: ʓebe [Miller et al. 2009: 155], transcribed phonetically as [ɟɛβe]; this form is most likely a recent borrowing from Central Khoisan, where *debe ~ *dobe is one of the main terms for 'salt' or 'salt lick'. Cf. also ʓiβe ~ dyiβe 'salt' in [Westphal 1965: 144].
ǀǀXegwi:ǀʰe-zi2
Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 102. Not attested in [Ziervogel 1955].
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible, since the forms in ǀXam and Nǀuu very likely reflect areal borrowings from Khoekhoe.
Bleek 1956: 362, 368. Plural form: ǀʼu̯íttǝn. Said of people (ha ǀǀaxai ʘwa ɳǀe ǀʼwerriː "her younger sister is short") as well as objects (ha aː, !wa!waːgǝn ǀʼwittǝn "it is one whose legs are short") [ibid.]. Transcribed as ǀʼǘŕŕiː, plural: ǀʼúttǝn by W. Bleek. Transcribed as ǀʼwiri in [Bleek 1929: 74]. The latter source adds ǂʼeni as a secondary synonym, but the main meaning of this word is 'small' q.v.
Ziervogel 1955: 58. Said of people (ha kwi ʔe la čwe "it is a short person"). Quoted as čwiŋ in [Lanham & Hallowes 1956: 103]; as čũĩ in [Bleek 1929: 74] and [Bleek 1956: 236].
Distribution: An isogloss between Nǀuu, ǀǀXegwi, and ǀʼAuni, thus perfectly reconstructible on the Proto-!Wi level. Replacements: Etymologies of ǀXam ǀʼu̯erriː and ǀHaasi ǀɔ̃-si are unknown.
NUMBER:106
WORD:snake
ǀXam:ǀǀérri-tǝn tí #1
Bleek 1956: 570. Plural form: ǀǀérritǝn dːé. Quoted as ǀǀeritǝn-ti in [Bleek 1929: 77]. A composite form, plausibly analyzed as "round thing" (cf. ti 'place, thing, part' [Bleek 1956: 201] and ǀǀerritǝn-ǀǀerritǝn 'round' q.v.; real meaning is quite possibly 'to surround, encircle', hence "the thing that coils"). The analysis makes it clear that the form is euphemistic in origin; a possibly more archaic, non-euphemistic root is suggested as a synonym in ǀǀüi [Bleek 1929: 77] = ǀǀʰwí 'snake, cobra' [Bleek 1956: 579], quoted only within the compound ǀǀʰwi ɳǀaŋ 'cobra head, name of poison which is in the two glands, and used for poisoning arrows' and not at all reliable.
Bleek 1956: 338. Quoted as ǀkʼaːse in [Bleek 1929: 77]. The supporting example is ǀxʼase kú !we "snake which is black", suggesting that this may indeed be the generic term for 'snake'. In contrast, the alternative equivalent ǀkʼau [Bleek 1929: 77] ~ ǀxʼauː [Bleek 1956: 338] is glossed as 'long yellow snake', i. e. a specific kind. (Etymological connection between the two words is possible, but not self-evident).
Lanham & Hallowes 1956a: 47. Judging by the form of the word, this may be a Bantuism, although the authors cannot identify the actual source; this is by no means a native South Khoisan word. (It is not entirely clear whether this is really the generic ǀǀXegwi term for 'snake', though).
Story 1999: 23. Probably a nominal derivative from cʼiː 'to bite' q.v.
Proto-!Wi:*ǀxʼa-
Distribution: A Nǀuu-ǀʼAuni isogloss (not likely to have been borrowed from the former into the latter because of morphological variations). Replacements: (a) In ǀXam, most likely replaced with a qualitative euphemism (see notes on ǀXam), thus {'round thing' > 'snake'}; (b) In ǀǀXegwi, probably replaced by a borrowing, although the source has not yet been identified; (c) ǀHaasi cʼiː-sa is transparently derived from cʼiː 'to bite' q.v., thus {'biter' > 'snake'}.
NUMBER:107
WORD:thin
ǀXam:
Not attested properly; possibly the same word as 'small' q.v., but this is hard to demonstrate based on available examples. In [Bleek 1929: 84], the word tʼãĩŋ is given in this meaning, but in [Bleek 1956: 188] it is only acknowledged with the semantics 'soft, supple', as well as the figurative meaning 'cunning' (= 'subtle').
ǀǀNg!ke:
Not attested.
ǂKhomani:
Not attested.
Nǀuu:ǀǀxʼui-a ~ ǀǀxʼui-si #1
Sands et al. 2006. Meaning glossed as 'thin person'.
ǀǀXegwi:
Not attested.
ǀ'Auni:
Not attested.
ǀHaasi:
Not attested.
Proto-!Wi:
Not reconstructible due to lack of proper attestation.
Bleek 1937: 219. Quoted as ǂwɛː in [Bleek 1956: 666]. The form čʼuːse 'wind' in [Bleek 1929: 92] actually means 'to blow (of wind)' = cʼuː ~ cʼuːse [Bleek 1937: 207].
ǀHaasi:ɡʘûː-a2
Story 1999: 23.
Proto-!Wi:*ǂqʰoe
Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for ǀHaasi. Replacements: No obvious parallels are found in !Wi languages for the strange ǀHaasi form with an initial labial click. Its origin may be expressive (sound-symbolic reproduction of "blowing"?), but no factual evidence for this exists.
Not attested in newer sources, although cf. gúlí 'year' in [Westphal 1965: 143] (in any case, only treatable as a borrowing of Central Khoisan provenance).