Werner 2002: I, 159; Werner 1993: 30. Quoted as bɨldǝ₅ in [Werner 1977: 142]; as bɨldʸɛ in [Castrén 1858: 190]. Not segmentable on the synchronic level, although Werner reasonably suggests that -da is an old suffix in Ket.

Werner 2011: 60. Quoted as bɨlʸːa₅ in [Werner 1977: 142]. Derived by H. Werner from earlier *bˈɨlʸdʸa.

Castrén 1858: 223. A rather transparent borrowing from a Turkic source (cf. Yakut bar, etc. < Common Turkic *baːr 'all'). Distinct from uːtam 'all = whole, totus' (German ganz), with the same root as in 'full' q.v.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 211. Alternately transcribed as *bəʎ- in [Werner 2002: I, 159]. Distribution: Not very reliable, since the form is properly reconstructible only on the Ket-Yugh level. The Kott form is a transparent borrowing from Turkic, and the Arin and Pumpokol equivalents are not attested. However, there is no internal explanation for the root on the Ket-Yugh level, either, so it could easily be archaic.

Werner 2002: II, 98, 101; Werner 1993: 67. Neuter gender. Quoted as qɔlʸǝn6 ~ qɔllǝn6 in [Werner 1977: 163]; as qolen in [Castrén 1858: 170]. Final -Vn may be a fossilized (collective) plural suffix.

Werner 2011: 69. Quoted as xont, pl. xont-en-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 172].

Castrén 1858: 225. Plural form: fenaŋ-an.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 263 (*qorVn- / ~ χ-, -ɔ-, -l-). Distribution: The three attested forms (in Ket, Yugh, and Kott) are all etymologically different. The Kott word for 'ashes' (fenaŋ) corresponds to words with the meaning 'sand' q.v. in all other Yeniseian languages, and its meaning, according to the majority rule, should be acknowledged as secondary ('sand' > 'ashes'). The Yugh form is not particularly transparent, but has a certain chance of secondary formation from the verb 'to burn' (see notes on Ket-Yugh). Only Ket qɔlɨn lacks any internal etymologization, and may therefore be tentatively regarded as the optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'ashes' at the moment. Reconstruction shape: Since the Ket form is isolated, there are multiple variants for the corresponding Proto-Yeniseian protoform: *qol- / *qɔl- / *qor- / *qɔr- (since Ket, among other things, does not distinguish between Proto-Yeniseian *-l- and *-r-). The final -n is not segmentable on the Ket level, but from a historical perspective it is most likely some sort of fossilized suffix.

Werner 2002: II, 433; Werner 1993: 131. Feminine gender. Quoted as ɨːn₃ in [Werner 1977: 195]; as ɨːgen in [Castrén 1858: 163] (reflecting the archaic bisyllabic stem with an intervocalic uvular). The latter source also has another phonetically similar, but etymologically different word in the same meaning of 'tree bark': iːŋ, pl. iːgen [Castrén 1858: 162], not confirmed in more modern sources.

Werner 2002: II, 433. Quoted as ɨːn₃ in [Werner 1977: 195]. For some reason, not found in [Werner 2011].

Castrén 1858: 225. Plural form: farpak-an ~ farpag-an ~ farpak-ŋ. Clearly a compound, in which the second element could be ax 'trees, wood' q.v., but the first root has no known individual semantics.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 196 (*ʔɨɢɨn /~ x-,-ʔ-,-χ-/). Distribution: The situation is somewhat difficult. Ket-Yugh *ʔɨɢ- 'bark' (for the isolation of this root from the complex stem *ʔɨɢɨn see notes on Common Ket-Yugh) is opposed to the Kott form farpax, which is also clearly a polymorphemic formation, where only -ax ('trees, wood') is reliably segmentable. S. Starostin [YED # 997] compares Kott farpax with the Ket form hɔ̂lʸ 'outer side; face', reconstructing Proto-Yeniseian *pɔːr with the same meaning. This is a possible etymology (correspondences are regular and the semantic matching is close), but does not account for -p- in Kott. One would have to assume, then, that Kott farpax < *far-ap + *ax 'outer side of trees', where -ap is the same suffix as in Kott fat-ap 'palm of hand', pul-ap 'sole of foot', i. e. denoting (among other things) the external parts or surface of the object, whereas in Ket the word is preserved without this suffix. There are some obvious problems with this explanation, but on the whole, it does constitute a strong case for the secondary origin of the word 'bark' in Kott. This leaves Ket-Yugh *ʔɨɢ- as the sole uncontested candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'bark', lost in Kott and not attested in either Arin or Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Since the word is only attested in Ket-Yugh, there are multiple possibilities for the reconstruction of either of the two consonants; most importantly, initial *ʔ- could just as well have been *x-.

Werner 2002: I, 348; Werner 1993: 124. Neuter gender. Plural form: hɜ̂y {хъй}. Quoted as hɨˑy₁, pl. hɜːyi₄ (Kur.) / hɜːyǝ₄ ~ hɜyǝ₄ (Bak., Sur.) / hɜy₄ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 193]; as hɨː, pl. hɨːy-aŋ ~ hɨɛy-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 83. Plural form: fɜʰːy. Quoted as fɨy₁, pl. fɜʰːy₄ in [Werner 1977: 193]; as fɨː, pl. fɨy-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Castrén 1858: 216, 218. Cf. the derivates: tʰaloːg-a 'pregnant', tʰalog-uːti 'satiated' (lit. 'belly-full'). Cf. in older sources: tulˈok (Kl., M., Pal., Dict.), tolok (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 289].

Dulzon 1961: 159 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 159 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

The proper equivalent for Proto-Yeniseian 'belly' (= 'external part of the body') is not reconstructible based on available data.

   The strongest etymology ties together Proto-Ket-Yugh *pɨy 'belly' and Kott fui ~ pʰui 'the inside (of smth.)' [Castrén 1858: 226] < Proto-Yeniseian *pɨy. However, considering that the Ket-Yugh word also shows additional semantics that is close to the Kott meaning (e. g. may be used to form the postposition 'in, inside'), there is no clear argument here that the original meaning was 'belly' or polysemous ('/external/ belly; internal parts, inside').

   Kott tʰaloːx (tulok, tolok in alternate sources) is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 290] with Proto-Yeniseian *tuːʎ- 'thin intestine' (> Ket tuːlʸi, Yugh tuːʰlʸ, Kott tʰutuːli with suggested reduplication). If the comparison is correct, then tʰaloːx is a derived form with a not particularly clear nominal suffix ('intestine-holder'?), although the vocalization -a- in Castrén's notation remains unclear. If it is incorrect, then the Kott word for 'belly' has no etymology and a CVCVC structure that still hints at the possibility of a derived (secondary) origin.

   Arin pʸʰorga is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 250] with Ket-Yugh *pɨʔɨʎ 'intestine' (more precisely, 'thick intestine' as opposed to *tuːʎ- 'thin intestine'). The strange correspondence "-rg- : -ʎ-" seems reasonable, given additional examples (most notably, Kott tʰempul 'root' = Arin tʸeːmbirga-ŋ id. q.v.): the old transcription -rg- may, in fact, represent some specific manner of articulation of the palatal -rʸ-. However, if the etymology is correct, Arin 'belly' is once again analyzable as some sort of 'intestine-holder'.

   Finally, Pumpokol kaŋ 'intestines, belly' is compared in [YED # 404] (but not in the corresponding printed entry in [S. Starostin 1995: 239]) with Ket-Yugh *kɨʔŋ 'belch (n.)', which is extremely dubious and seemingly unprecedented from the point of view of semantic typology. (Additionally, it is not even all that clear if kaŋ was indeed the primary equivalent for 'belly (external)' in Pumpokol).

   All things considered, we prefer to refrain from filling in this particular slot, although the root *pɨy should probably be at least remembered for the purposes of further external comparison.

Werner 2002: II, 58. Plural form: qä̂-ŋ {қяң ~ қең}. Quoted as qɛʔ2 (N.-Imb.) / qä₄ (S.-Imb.), pl. qeːŋ₁ ~ qäŋ₄ in [Werner 1977: 160]; as qeɛ in [Castrén 1858: 170].

Werner 2011: 160. Plural form: χe-ŋ. Quoted as χɛʔ₂ ~ χɛʰː₄, pl. χe-ŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 160].

Castrén 1858: 225. Cf. in older sources: pačaga (Kl., M., Pal., Dict.) [Verner 1990: 288].

Dulzon 1961: 158 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as ber ~ ber-ke 'big' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 140].

Dulzon 1961: 158 (Dict.). Quoted as xäese in (Kl.); as xeːm ~ xʸaese in (Pal.).

S. Starostin 1995: 300 (*χ[e]ʔ). Alternately reconstructed as *qɛʔ in [Werner 2002: II, 58]. Distribution: In its original form and meaning, the word is well preserved in Ket-Yugh, as well as Pumpokol (where xäː-se = Ket qɛ:-sʸi 'big; chief' /substantivized form/ [Werner 2002: II, 73]). It seems to be absent as such in Kott and Arin. However, it is also preserved as a fossilized component in several additional complex nominal stems, such as *qe-b 'grandfather' (< *qeʔ + *ʔab 'father'), *qe-ma 'grandmother' (< *qeʔ + *ʔama 'mother'), both of which do have explicit reflexes in Kott (hiːpa, hiːma) and Arin (=kib, =kima) [S. Starostin 1995: 300]. It may, therefore, be quite safely assumed that Ket-Yugh here preserves the original situation. Replacements: (a) Kott fačaː is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 245] with Pumpokol barčoy 'high' < Proto-Yeniseian *pa(r)sa (?) 'big', but the etymology is very weak, since the consonantal correspondences are irregular, so the word could just as well be considered an isolate with no suggested origins; (b) Arin birka is compared in [S. Starostin 1995: 213] with Ket bɔʔlʸ 'thick' < PY *bVʔʎ-; the word-medial consonantal correspondence would be the same as in the Arin word for 'belly' q.v., but the vocalism is again irregular. In any case, even if the etymology is correct, it would probably surmise the development 'thick' > 'big' (gen.) in Arin, judging by the situation in general. Reconstruction shape: Since we prefer not to distinguish between S. Starostin's Proto-Yeniseian *q and *χ, we reinterpret his reconstruction of *χeʔ as *qeʔ (more in line with H. Werner's reconstruction).

Werner 2002: I, 422; Werner 1993: 52. Masculine gender. Plural form: kˈe-ŋ-asʸːenʸ. Literally analyzed as 'wings-animal'. Another synonymous form from the same root is keˑŋ-sʸ, pl. keˑŋ-sʸ-in [Werner 2002: I, 423].

    A close quasi-synonym is duˑm, pl. dum-n ~ num-n, but its meaning is always glossed as 'small bird', 'youngling': 'kleiner Vogel', 'Vögelchen' [Werner 2002: I, 211], duˑm₁ 'птичка' [Werner 1977: 147], dum 'Vöglein, Sperling' [Castrén 1858: 185]. The item is, therefore, less eligible for the wordlist, even if, as a simple root stem, it is obviously more archaic than the recent compound form in Ket.

Werner 2011: 326. Literally analyzed as 'wing-animal' (< kˈɛy-at 'wing' + atčɛʰːr 'animal'). The quasi-synonymous form dɨl-tɨm [Werner 2011: 326], consisting of dɨl 'child; little' and *tɨm 'bird', is used to denote the meaning 'small bird'.

Castrén 1858: 197. Plural form: al=tˈuːma-n. Questionable, since the meaning is given as 'little bird, youngling' ('Vöglein'), but no alternate Kott equivalent is known for the more generic meaning of 'bird'. The component al=, based on comparative evidence, may be safely analyzed as a fossilized prefix with an unknown meaning (see 'dog', etc.).

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 225. Distribution: The word is found in both Ket-Yugh and Kott and is clearly of Proto-Yeniseian provenance, but see further notes on semantics. Replacements: In Ket-Yugh, replaced either on the proto-level or on the levels of independent dialects by an idiomatic formation: 'bird' < 'winged-animal'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are fairly regular and straightforward. In Kott, the word is only attested in conjunction with the old fossilized prefix al=, whose original function remains unclear (see 'dog', 'star', etc., for further examples). Semantics: In all the attested variants, the reflexes of Proto-Yeniseian *duma have always been glossed as either 'small bird' or 'youngling; chick'. This means that it should be primarily reconstructible in this particular meaning; however, there is no separate term for 'bird (gen.)' or 'large bird' that could be reconstructed in opposition to *duma '(small) bird', which leaves the latter as the only generic term in the entire field to be projected onto a higher level.

Werner 2002: II, 3; Werner 1993: 76. Composite verb, formed with the frequent compound verb formative -aq. Cf. individual forms: da=lˈap-t-aq 'she bites', past tense da=lˈap-t-ɔ-n-ɔq; da=lˈab-ba-t-aq 'she bites me', past tense da=lˈab-ba-t-ɔ-n-ɔq. In [Werner 1977: 168], quoted only for the Yugh dialect, but, as seen from other sources, clearly present in Ket proper as well. Quoted as laptokŋ, past tense laptanokŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174].

    Potential synonyms include: (a) ˈarɔŋ 'to bite' [Werner 2002: I, 58] = {ароң} in [Werner 1993: 18], glossed as 'to bite /of dog/'; the fact that the only derivative from this word is ˈarɔŋ-sʸ 'prone to bite /of dog/' confirms that the word is primarily applicable to dogs, rather than the required human act; (b) hˈɨlʸdaŋ [Werner 2002: I, 343], glossed with polysemy: 'to bite / to chew', and only in the meaning 'to chew', as {хъльдаң ~ хыльдаң}, in [Werner 1993: 123]; primary semantics here, judging by the statistical frequency of examples and general presentation in sources, is 'to chew' rather than 'to bite'.

Werner 2011: 85. Infinitive form. The finite verbal paradigm is formed in several different ways. The most archaic variant, parallel to the one in Ket, is probably a compound formation with č=aqŋ ~ č=aχuŋ: di=lˈap-č-a-qŋ ~ di=lˈap-č-a-χuŋ 'I bite', past tense di=lˈap-č-ɔ-n-uŋ. Other variants are derived from the infinitive and include: di=lˈappɨŋ-ˈa-getʸ 'I bite', di=lˈappiŋ-χ-ˈa-y-itʸ 'I bite him', etc. [Werner 2011: 86].

    Potential synonyms include: (a) ˈayiŋ-aχ (d=ˈayiŋ-aχ-ˈa-getʸ 'he bites'), parallel to Ket ˈarɔŋ and possibly also with the primary meaning 'to bite /of dog/'; (b) fɨl-dʸ-a (di=fɨl-dʸ-a-y-a 'I bite him'), a verb whose primary meaning might be 'chew' rather than 'bite' [Werner 2011: 190]).

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not reconstructible due to insufficient attestation (and the main Ket-Yugh equivalent is quite obviously of recent secondary origin as well).

Werner 2002: II, 295; Werner 1993: 103. Plural form: tˈum-aŋsʸ-in. The non-predicative form is simply tuˑm (e. g. tuˑm dɨˑlʸ 'black child'). Quoted as tuˑm₁ in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tum ~ tuom in [Castrén 1858: 178].

Werner 2011: 272. Plural form: tˈum-ɨŋ. Quoted as tum₁ in [Werner 1977: 185].

Castrén 1858: 219.

Dulzon 1961: 188 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Predicative form ('it is black').

Dulzon 1961: 188 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Predicative form ('it is black').

S. Starostin 1995: 289. Alternatively reconstructed as *tʰum in [Werner 2002: II, 296]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular and trivial.

Werner 2002: II, 219; Werner 1993: 91. Neuter gender. Quoted as sʸuˑlʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 178]; as suːl ~ sul in [Castrén 1858: 187].

Werner 2011: 96. Quoted as sur₁ in [Werner 1977: 178]; as sur, pl. sur-eːŋ in [Castrén 1858: 187].

Castrén 1858: 215. Plural form: šuːr-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: šur (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 325].

Werner 2002: II, 219. Attested only in Khelimskiy's records.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 278. Alternately reconstructed as *suʎ in [Werner 2002: II, 219]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are completely regular. Semantics: The same root also served (already on the Proto-Yeniseian level) as the main derivational stem for the word 'red' q.v.

Werner 2002: I, 86; Werner 1993: 20. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈarʸ-eŋ {ареӈ}. Quoted as aʔt₂, pl. arʸeŋ₅ (Imb.), adeŋ₅ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 136]; as at, pl. aːdeŋ in [Castrén 1858: 158].

Werner 2011: 195. Plural form: ˈad-iŋ ~ ˈad-ɨŋ. Quoted as aʔt₂, pl. ad-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 136].

Castrén 1858: 206. Plural form: xagal-aŋ.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 178. Alternately reconstructed as *aʔt in [Werner 2002: I, 86]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh; not attested in Arin and Pumpokol. In Kott, the etymological parallel is ar-aŋ ~ ar-aŋ-an 'joint; limb', which may be analyzed as a former collective plural form ('limb' = '(a set of) bones'). This implies the semantic shift {'bone' > 'limb'} and, most likely, the archaicity of the Ket-Yugh semantics. Replacements: Kott xagal has no known parallels in other Yeniseian languages; its CVCVC structure is slightly suspicious, but there are no known potential sources of borrowing. Reconstruction shape: Since there are no parallels in Arin, the word-initial position could be represented by either *ʔ- or *x-.

Werner 2002: II, 300; Werner 1993: 104. Neuter gender. Plural form: tɜɣˈenʸ ~ tɜɣˈaːnʸ {тъгень ~ тъгаань}. Quoted as tɜga₅ ~ tɜɣa₅, pl. tɜɣǝnʸ₆ / tɜ₃ɣaːnʸ (Bak.) in [Werner 1977: 183]. Quite distinct from maʔm 'female breast' [Werner 2002: II, 19].

Werner 2011: 101. Neuter gender. Plural form: tˈɜga-n ~ tɜgˈaː-n. Quoted as tɜga₅, pl. tɜgǝn₅ ~ tɜ₃gǝːn in [Werner 1977: 183]. Quite distinct from maʔm 'female breast' [Werner 2011: 101].

Castrén 1858: 224. Plural form: fa-yikŋ. This is the only word with the meaning 'breast' ('Brust') attested in Castrén's data. Cf. in older sources: pfa (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 302]. Entirely different word, however, quoted in (Kh.): xanti [ibid.].

Dulzon 1961: 163 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as apien (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: I, 348]. Final -aŋ (-en) seems to be detachable as a plural (plurale tantum?) suffix.

Dulzon 1961: 163 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 284. Alternately reconstructed as *tʰǝga in [Werner 2002: II, 300]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and in Pumpokol. Replacements: The Ket-Yugh / Pumpokol item is distinctly opposed to the Kott-Arin isogloss, reconstructible with difficulty (Kott pa and Arin pʰi- are hard to reconcile; perhaps the vowel fluctuation is due to different ways of contraction of an earlier cluster, e. g. < *paxV or *pixV). Which of the two should be considered the primary candidate for Proto-Yeniseian '(male) breast', remains uncertain. We choose the Ket-Yugh / Pumpokol isogloss as the default candidate only because (a) it poses fewer phonetic difficulties as far as the phonetic shape of the reconstruction is concerned and (b) there is a vague chance that the Kott / Arin forms may in some way be related to the Proto-Yeniseian word for 'heart' q.v. and, perhaps, be historically derived from it (although no transparent scenario may be suggested at the present time).

Werner 2002: I, 209; Werner 1993: 36. The infinitive is not attested; known paradigmatic forms are dˈi-v-rʸut 'I burn it / I light it', past tense d-b-ˈi-lʸ-dut 'I burned it / I lit it' [ibid.]. The same stem is also present in the composite verb duːd...bet 'to fish at night (with lit lights)', literally 'to-lighting-make' [Werner 2002: I, 210].

    A complicated case, as there are synonyms: (a) the composite verb inɔ-q... da with the same polysemy 'to light / to burn': d=ˈinɔ-q-a-v-rʸa 'I light/burn it', past tense d-inɔ-q-ɔ-v-i-lʸ-da [Werner 2002: I, 366]; the infinitive form is inɔ-ʁat ~ inɔ-ʁɔt; (b) in [Castrén 1858: 168], the verb 'to light (fire)' is rendered as kot-a-bit ~ kot-a-biːtʸ, which is probably a mistranscription for *qɔt-a-bet = Ket qˈɔt-a-vet 'to heat (the oven)', infinitive qˈɔtɛt ~ qˈɔt-qǝt 'to put wood on the fire'. Considering the external parallels of this stem in Yugh (as well as its basic meaning 'fire' in Kott), it is quite likely that *qɔt is the original Ket verb denoting 'burning' in the transitive sense. However, its current basic meaning seems to have narrowed down to a peripheral sphere ('put wood on the fire').

Werner 2011: 315. An infinitive form. The finite forms of the verb usually feature this root as the first lexical stem within a compound formation, e. g.: di=χˈɔt-a-b-diʔ 'I burn it', past tense di=χˈɔt-ɔ-b-ɨ-r-diʔ, or di=χˈɔt-i-y-itʸ 'he burns her', past tense di=χɔt-dʸitʸ-nʸ-e, etc.

    An additional synonym is an expressive, probably more recent formation: (a) bˈɔk-d-iriŋ 'to burn' [Werner 2011: 316], lit. 'fire-gen.-to eat', e. g. da=bˈɔg-d-iriŋ-aː-b-diʔ 'she burns it'.

Castrén 1858: 215. 1st person sg.; the stem consists of the verbal prefix č= and the root =augan-. The simple stem, without the verbal prefix, is attested with a different meaning: augan-aŋ 'I am cooking' [Castrén 1858: 195]. A less certain candidate is the composite expression hat akfaːtekŋ, glossed as 'to burn; to set fire (to)' [Castrén 1858: 195, 234]. Since the expression consists of hat 'fire' q.v. + akfaːtekŋ 'to set, establish', it is much more likely that it refers to the inchoative situation of lighting a fire rather than to 'burning down smth.'. Cf. in older sources: atakpodɨ 'I burn' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 311] = hat akfaːt-.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 304 (*χɔt 'to burn; fire'). Alternately reconstructed as *qoʔt ~ *qʌʔt 'fire; to burn' in [Werner 2002: I, 305]. Distribution: In the Kott-Arin branch, this word is preserved only as a nominal stem ('fire'), where it has wiped out the original root for 'fire' (*boʔk q.v.), although the exact situation in Arin is actually unknown (no equivalent for the verb 'to burn' attested in that branch). Replacements: (a) In Ket, the old verb seems to have become specialized {'to burn /smth./' > 'to roast; to put wood on the fire'} and replaced by =dut {'to light / fire/' > 'to burn /smth./'}; (b) In Kott, provided Castrén's semantic glossing is accurate, the old verbal stem is replaced by a combination of the old verbal root *ʔǝqan 'to boil' (= 'to cook') [S. Starostin 1995: 191] with a preverbal directional morpheme.

Werner 2002: I, 367; Werner 1993: 47. Neuter gender. Plural form: iˑnʸ-eŋ {инеӈ}. Polysemy: 'claw / nail'. Quoted as inʸ₄ / iːnʸi₄ (Kur.) / iːnʸǝ₄ ~ inʸǝ₄ (Sur.), pl. iˑnʸ-eŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 151]; as iːn, pl. iːn-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 162].

Werner 2011: 223. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈinʸ-iŋ. Polysemy: 'claw / nail'. Quoted as iʰːnʸ₄, pl. inʸ-iŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 151].

Castrén 1858: 208. Plural form: halčik-ŋ. Polysemy: 'nail / claw / hoof'. Cf. in older sources: xalčik (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 322].

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 195 (*ʔiːɲ-). Alternately reconstructed as *iʔǝnǝ ~ *iʔǝɲǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 364, 367]. Distribution: Preserved only in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: In Kott, merged with halčiːg 'hoof' = Ket qɔlʸesʸ, Arin kalɨs 'hoof' < Proto-Yeniseian *χɔlVčiɢ [S. Starostin 1995: 304]. Since there are no internal etymologies or areal explanations for Ket-Yugh *ʔiːɲe as an innovation, the most economic solution is to assume this secondary semantic merger in Kott {'hoof' > 'finger-nail'}. Reconstruction shape: Lack of Arin parallels means that the word-initial position, instead of the glottal stop, could have been occupied by the weak velar fricative *x-.

Werner 2002: I, 71; Werner 1993: 20. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈasʸpulʸ-aŋ {асьпуляң}. Quoted as asʸpulʸ₅ ~ asʸpulʸ₆, pl. asʸpulʸ-ǝŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 135]; as aːsfɜl, pl. asfɨlʸ in [Castrén 1858: 159] (although phonetically the form is Yugh).

    Secondary synonym: ˈɛsʸqay {есқай} 'cloud, cloudy' [Werner 2002: I, 248]; Werner 1993: 44]. Quoted as eːsxai, pl. eːsxaŋnaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 160]. A compound form, literally: 'sky' + 'mountain' q.v.; clearly a more recent formation than ˈasʸpulʸ, and not confirmed textually as a proper "basic" candidate for the slot.

Werner 2011: 343. Neuter gender. Plural form: asfɨːlʸ ~ asfɨlʸ-iŋ. Quoted as asfɨl₅ ~ asfɨl₆, pl. as₃fɨːlʸ in [Werner 1977: 135].

    Secondary synonym: ˈesχay 'cloud' [Werner 2011: 343]; see the corresponding Ket entry for notes on this compound formation.

Castrén 1858: 197. Plural: ašpar-aŋ ~ ašpˈor-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: ašpar-an (M.) [Verner 1990: 339].

Dulzon 1961: 175 (M.). Final -aŋ is obviously the plural marker.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 255 (*ʔas, *ʔas-pVr). Alternately reconstructed as *es-pʰǝʎ in [Werner 2002: I, 71]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (although not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Vocalic reconstruction is highly approximate, since correspondences show irregularities both in the first and second syllables. Structure-wise, the word is clearly a compound, in which the first part is the Proto-Yeniseian word for 'sky': Ket eˑsʸ, Yugh es, Kott eːš, Arin es, Pumpokol eč < Proto-Yeniseian *ʔes [S. Starostin 1995: 188]. The protolanguage variant here, however, must have been *ʔas- rather than *ʔes-, with a somewhat obscure, but recurrent, model of vowel gradation; in Arin, original *as-per probably changed to es-per through later analogy with simple es (Werner's reconstruction of both 'sky' and 'cloud' with root vowel e is less satisfactory than Starostin's in this respect). The second component is not encountered on its own, but it may be the same as -par in Kott tiː-par 'fog' [Werner 2002: II, 265], i. e. the original word denoting all forms of cloudy condensation. The root vowel is tentatively identified as *u based on the Ket form, since it is the hardest one to explain as secondary: Kott and Arin vowels duplicate the vocalism of the first syllable, and Yugh ɨ represents the same development as in the word for 'knee' q.v.

Werner 2002: II, 250; Werner 1993: 95. Quoted as taʔy₂ in [Werner 1977: 179]; as tai in [Castrén 1858: 175]. Polysemy: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.) / frost' (only glossed as 'frost' in [Werner 1977] and [Werner 1993]).

Werner 2011: 189. Polysemy: 'cold (adj.) / cold (n.) / frost'.

Castrén 1858: 215. Plural form (the word functions both as noun and adjective): čˈal-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: čˈol-tu (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), čal-tu (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 386] (-tu is the 3rd p. predicative suffix).

Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Cf. also šil-tʸu 'it is cold', šil-tu 'cold (n.)', maybe also sol-ma 'frost' (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I: 162].

Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). A synonymous form, recorded for Pumpokol, is tayem (Dict., Kl.); however, it is highly suspicious that this is in reality a Ket-Yugh form rather than proper Pumpokol.

It is currently impossible to determine the optimal candidate for the meaning 'cold' in Proto-Yeniseian, since at least two choices have the exact same probability: Ket-Yugh *taʔy [S. Starostin 1995: 280] and Kott-Arin *ǯVr₁- [S. Starostin 1995: 311] (the vocalism in the case of the latter is hard to recover due to morphological vowel gradation in the attested forms). Neither of the two forms finds any etymological parallels in the other branch, nor do they have any internal etymologies or identifiable sources of borrowing. According to S. Starostin, Ket-Yugh *taʔy has generally more reliable and semantically close parallels on the Sino-Caucasian level, but we currently prefer not to use this macrofamily-level connection as an argument, and leave the position open.

Werner 202: I, 351; Werner 1993: 45. Infinitive form; the word is a highly non-trivial composite verb consisting of the 1st stem ("modifier") i, the preverb k (phonetically g) and the "nuclear" stem besʸ. That k (g) is formally a preverb and not part of the 1st root is proven by the paradigm: d=ˈi-k-sʸ-i-besʸ 'I (will) come' vs. d=i-bˈɔ-k-sʸ-i-vesʸ 'he brings me with him', literally 'he-with-me-comes' (in the latter form the preverb -k- is separated from the root -i- with the 1st p. indirect object marker -bɔ-). On the other hand, the latter form is also attested in the dialectal variant d=ig-bˈɔ-k-sʸ-i-vesʸ. If this is not the result of analogical contamination with the infinitive, it might mean that the 1st root is, after all, *-ik-. As for the morpheme besʸ, it is encountered, albeit very rarely, in other Ket stems as well, cf. bɔlʸ-besʸ 'to become thick' [Werner 2002: I, 122], meaning that, as is usually the case with biradical verbs, it is probably *-i- (*-ik-) that carries the main original directional semantics of 'coming'.

    Quoted as igbisʸ₆ / iɣvisʸ₆ (S.-Imb.) 'to bring' in [Werner 1977: 150]; as di=ek-s-i-bɛs in [Castrén 1858: 181]. The latter source adds an extra synonym: d=a=d=dʸi [Castrén 1858: 180], but in most modern sources this verb is usually explicated with the slightly different meaning 'to reach', 'to arrive' (e. g. in [Werner 1993: 32]: d=a=d=diy {даддий} 'I will reach, arrive' = Russian 'дойду, приду').

Werner 2011: 197. Infinitive form. See notes on the corresponding Ket entry for morphological analysis. Quoted as igbes₆ 'to bring' in [Werner 1977: 150]. The quasi-synonymous form =dʸi [Werner 2011: 196] rather means 'to reach, arrive at (one's final destination)' than 'to come'.

Castrén 1858: 201. 1st p. sg. Cf. also past tense: ha=itoːy-aŋ, imperative: o=ta.

Not attested.

Not attested.

The Proto-Yeniseian form is not reconstructible, since the Ket-Yugh and Kott forms lack mutual etymologization; furthermore, the basic verb 'to come' in Ket is a composite verb, which makes its archaic nature quite dubious, and the morphophonology of the verbal root in Kott remains to be explored in more detail.

Werner 2002: II, 114, 124; Werner 1993: 69. Paradigm: 1st sg. dˈi=y=ʁɔ ~ dˈi=y=ɔ=ʁɔ 'I (will) die', past tense d=ˈiˑ=n=ɔ (< d=ˈiˑ=n=ɔ=ʁo). The adduced infinitive is a complex bimorphemic formation; the simple infinitive form qɔː {қоо} ([Werner 2002: II, 124; Werner 1993: 66]) is glossed as 'kill' rather than 'die', but this semantic gloss is actually quite dubious (see notes on 'kill'). Nevertheless, only the morpheme *qɔː, in different allomorphic variants, participates in the general verbal paradigm. Quoted as qɔ-rʸeŋ₅ / qɔ-deŋ₅ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 162]; as present tense di=ey=o, past tense diː=n=o in [Castrén 1858: 181].

Werner 2011: 291. Paradigm: 1st sg. diˑ=y=ɔ (< *diˑ=y=χɔ) 'I (will) die', past tense diˑ=n=ɔ (< *diˑ=n=χɔ). A more complex variant of the same verb is attested as infinitive χˈɔ-dɨŋ 'to die', 1 sg. di=χˈɔ-dɨŋ-ˈa-getʸ 'I (will) die' [Werner 2011: 291]; the infinitive is also quoted as χɔ-deŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 162].

Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. the past tense: o=n=xa-y-aŋ, imperative: a=n=xa. Cf. also the substantival stem: xa ~ qa, pl. xa-yik-ŋ 'death' [Castrén 1858: 206]. Cf. in older sources: ˈo=n=xa 'dead (person)' [Verner 1990: 332] (basically a verbal form, 3rd p. past tense: 'he died').

Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Kl.). The root is attested as part of the form ˈin-qo 'dead (person)'; cf. also in=ko-to (Kh.) 'death' [Werner 2002: II, 124]. Technically speaking, none of these forms prove that *=qo was the default root forming the basic verb 'to die' in Arin, but no alternatives are available, and external data confirm the Proto-Yeniseian status of the item anyway.

Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict.). Only attested as part of the form kˈa-doŋ-du "he is dead", where -du is the 3rd p. m. suffix, but the component -doŋ- remains grammatically and etymologically obscure. Dubious.

S. Starostin 1995: 264 (*qɔ-). Alternately reconstructed as *qoɢǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 123]; in [S. Starostin 1995: 264], the reconstruction *qoːɢV is reserved for the closely similar item with the meaning 'to hunt' (Ket qɔː, Yugh χoː) - probably a near-homonymous, but etymologically different entry, although H. Werner conflates the two (unjustly, since the necessary intermediate meaning 'to kill' is not attested in Ket-Yugh). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The vocalism *ɔ is based on S. Starostin's correspondence of "Ket-Yugh *ɔ ~ *o : Kott a".

Werner 2002: II, 269; Werner 1993: 99. Masculine gender. Plural form: taʔp {таʼп}. Quoted as tiˑp₁, pl. taʔp₂ in [Werner 1977: 181]; as tip ~ tiːp in [Castrén 1858: 177].

Werner 2011: 182. Feminine gender. Plural form: čaʔp. Quoted as čip₁, pl. čaʔp₂ in [Werner 1977: 181].

Castrén 1858: 196. Plural form (with vowel gradation): al=šap. The word contains the same fossilized prefix as 'bird' q.v. Cf. in older sources: ˈal=šip (M., Dict., Kl.), al=šib (F.) [Verner 1990: 369].

Dulzon 1961: 182 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as il=čep (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: II, 269].

Dulzon 1961: 182 (Kl.). Also attested as ci in (Kl., Dict.); it is not clear if this is the same word as čɨp, nor is it entirely clear that čɨp itself is not, in fact, a Yugh form.

S. Starostin 1995: 217. Alternately reconstructed as *tʸip in [Werner 2002: II, 269]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, slightly disturbed by two factors: (a) a vowel gradation scheme between sg. and pl. forms - the Proto-Yeniseian paradigm was probably the same as Ket-Yugh, i. e. sg. *čip, pl. *čaʔp), but the vocalism of the plural variant may have become generalized in Arin; (b) the Kott-Arin forms are attested in conjunction with a desemanticized prefix (Kott al=, Arin il=, original vocalism unclear) that is also encountered in several other entries on the 100-word list ('bird', 'star'); this seems to have been a shared Kott-Arin innovation.

Werner 2002: II, 321, 337; Werner 1993: 110, 112. Quoted as urˈɔ (Imb.) / udˈɔ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 186]. Composite infinitive form, in which the first component = ulʸ 'water' q.v. Of the two variants, the first one is more archaic, since it fuses together the final consonant of the first stem with the initial consonant of the second one (*xur₁-dɔ- > urɔ-); the second variant more likely represents the "reinstated" stem, based on regularized analogy with the word 'water'.

    Since the Yugh equivalent of this form shows final -p (u=dɔp ~ ur=dɔp), it is reasonable to suppose irregular elimination of -p in Ket proper as well, possibly triggered by analogy with various complex verbal forms in which -p is lost for samdhi reasons (e. g. ulʸdɔ-ba=ɣ=a=ʁan "I begin to get drunk"), or with the plural forms of the simple paradigm in which -p- is regularly lost in the intervocalic position. The paradigm in question is: d=ˈa=b=dop 'I drink it', past tense d=ˈɔ=g=dɔp ~ d=ˈɔ=m=dɔp [Werner 2002: I, 200]. Loss of final -p in the infinitive form also explains why the infinitive form is used in conjunction with ulʸ 'water': to avoid homonymy with other verbal roots of the same form. However, the conjugated complex verb ul...dɔp 'to drink (water)' also exists per se, and is attested as early as in [Castrén 1858: 184]: d=ul=e=dap 'I drink', past tense d=ul=e=g=dap.

    An even more complicated question is the relation between the Ket stems =dɔ(p) and =ɔp, also 'drink', as in: d=a=b=ɔp 'I drink it', past tense d=ɔ=b=a=l=ɔp [Werner 2002: II, 44]. The semantic difference between d=a=b=dop and d=a=b=ɔp is unclear; it can only be seen from available texts that the latter form is much more rare, possibly archaic in origin. Whether they are connected etymologically is quite debatable; to link them together, one would have to demonstrate that -d- in d=a=b=dop is an old preverb, fused with the root. But apparently, this is impossible to do on available Ket material, since even the external parallels in Kott show that the two stems must have been differentiated already on the Proto-Yeniseian level (there is, however, some evidence for such segmentation in Yugh, see notes on the Yugh entry). In any case, at the moment it seems that =ɔp has to be excluded from lexicostatistical calculations.

Werner 2011: 306. Infinitive form; another variant of the infinitive is the complex formation u=dˈop ~ u=dˈof (< *ur-dop, literally 'water-drink'; the form ur=dop itself is also attested, but is likely to be a back-formation through analogy, cf. the same situation in Ket). Quoted as u=dˈɔp in [Werner 1977: 186]. Both infinitives correspond to the same finite paradigm: 1 sg. d=aʰː=b=dop 'I drink it', past tense d=ɔ=b=ɨ=y=op, imperative a=y=ɔp 'drink it!'. There is also a composite paradigm: 1 sg. d=ˈur=a=dop 'I drink', where =ur= is 'water'; quoted as d=ur=e=daf, past tense d=ur=e=g=daf in [Castrén 1858: 185]. It is notable that in all these paradigms, the root has the form =dop in the present tense, but =op in the past tense and in the imperative mood. This suppletivism cannot be explained through regular Yugh morphophonology.

Castrén 1858: 202, 213. 1st p. sg. Cf. also past tense: o=l=aː=p-aŋ, imperative: a=l=č=ep, infinitive: ši=g=ap. The root is either =p- or =ap, with the vowel sometimes deleted through contraction with preceding prefixes. Cf. in older sources: opaŋ (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 348].

Dulzon 1961: 177 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Morphologically obscure; most likely, a complex stem with an adverbial prefix, but proper segmentation seems impossible.

Dulzon 1961: 177 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Morphologically obscure; as in Arin, probably a complex stem is involved, but segmentation is unclear. The form du-ž-dop 'to drink', listed in (Pal.) and (Kl.) as a synonym, is most likely a corrupt transcription of Yugh (not proper Pumpokol) d=ur=a=dop q.v.

S. Starostin 1995: 202 (*ʔVbV); superseded by the newer reconstruction *ʔop- in [YED # 173]. Also reconstructed as *op in [Werner 2002: II, 44]. Distribution: Best attested in Kott, as well as in a part of the Ket-Yugh paradigm. Replacements: (a) The forms in Arin and Pumpokol, as is common for most verbal forms attested in these languages, are very hard to interpret. S. Starostin [1995: 203] suggested that they are cognate, segmenting the Arin form as tʸ=aːgu-r, comparing the "root" to /h/ok- in Pumpokol and reconstructing a rather vague stem *ʔVKV- 'to drink'. This reconstruction, however, depends on way too many unprovable assumptions, not to mention that any Arin or Pumpokol forms attested in XVIIth century sources without reliable external cognates in Ket or Kott are highly questionable to begin with. Provisionally, we treat them as independent replacements with obscure etymologies; (b) In Ket-Yugh, the old root *=op has been confined to certain suppletive parts of the paradigm, being generally replaced by =dop. This latter stem is compared by S. Starostin to Kott toːp- in toːp-aːk-ŋ 'I eat', etc. < Proto-Yeniseian *dop 'to eat' [S. Starostin 1995: 223]. If this comparison is right, the Ket-Yugh meanings are probably innovative, appearing through frequent usage of the compound stem *xur₁-dop, literally 'to consume water', where *dop would be a verb with originally vague semantics ('to consume, devour'?). Another possibility is that Ket-Yugh *=dop (and maybe Kott toːp- as well?) are historically fusions of the same old root *=op with a directional prefix; however, it remains unprovable. Overall, the entire situation is beset with etymological problems, so the selection of *=op as an optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'to drink' rests only on its position as the currently strongest isogloss between Ket-Yugh and a non-Ket-Yugh language (Kott) in the required meaning. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket-Yugh and Kott are regular and trivial.

Werner 2002: II, 277, 283. Final -sʸ is a predicative suffix. Quoted as toˑyiŋ₁ / tɔ₅ʁɔiŋ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 181]; as toɢayeŋ in [Castrén 1858: 177]. This stem forms numerous derived composite verbs with the meaning 'to dry': tɔʁɔyiŋ-diy, tɔʁɔyiŋ-ɢat, etc. [Werner 2002: II, 277]. The quasi-synonymous form qˈolʸaŋ(-sʸ) 'dry' [Werner 2002: II, 99] has very limited usage, predominantly in the meaning 'withered' (of trees or grass), so it is not eligible for inclusion.

Werner 2011: 306. Quoted as tɔχˈɔkŋ ~ tɔχˈaiŋ in [Werner 1977: 181] (tɔχˈɔkŋ may be a misprint). As in Ket, this complex adjectival / infinitive stem serves as the basis for verbs with the meaning 'to dry', e. g. tɔχɔyiŋ-etʸ [Werner 2011: 306].

Castrén 1858: 213. The prefix ši= indicates that the form is really an infinitive, but the verb 'to dry' in Kott has only been preserved as compound formations: šiː=gal-ai-č-e-jaːk-ŋ 'to dry out (intr.)', dʸ=ä=šiː=gal-aŋ 'to dry (tr.)', etc. The older sources usually cite a different word in the meaning 'dry': xuiga (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 375].

Dulzon 1961: 185 (M., Dict., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 185 (Dict.). The status of the prefixal component ič= is unclear; if the form is really predicative ('it is dry'), it could be a sequence of auxiliary verbal morphemes (conjugation markers).

S. Starostin 1995: 265 (*qV[ɢ]i-). Alternately reconstructed as *qoy ~ *qoyiŋ in [Werner 2002: II, 283]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for the Kott dialect described by M. Castrén. Replacements: In Kott, the old word for 'dry' (as in 'dry clothes', etc.) may have merged with the old word for 'dry, withered' (as in 'dry tree', etc.): Kott =gal- = Ket qɔlʸ- in qɔlʸ-iŋ oˑksʸ 'dry tree', etc. [Werner 2002: II, 101]. This is hard to ascertain due to the possibility of inaccurate semantic glossing in known sources on Kott, but may still be regarded as the optimal scenario under the present circumstances. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Word-medial *-ɢ-, tentatively suggested by S. Starostin, is not very likely in this root (although the only form that explicitly contradicts such a reconstruction is Kott xui-ga), but its probability becomes higher if we decide to establish a further etymological link with Proto-Yeniseian *qɔq-ante 'hunger' [S. Starostin 1995: 265]; the derivation 'dry' > 'hunger' is typologically possible, e. g. encountered in Burushaski.

Werner 2002: II, 31; Werner 1993: 81. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔgdɛ-n {огдэн} ~ ˈɔgdɛ-niŋ. Quoted as ɔgde₅, pl. ɔgden₆ in [Werner 1977: 171]; as ogdi in [Castrén 1858: 163].

Werner 2011: 234. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔχtiŋ-ɨn ~ ˈɔχtɨŋ-ɨn. Quoted as ɔχtɨŋ₆, ɔχtɨŋ-ɨn₅ in [Werner 1977: 171]; as oqteŋ in [Castrén 1858: 163].

Castrén 1858: 204. Plural form: kaloːg-ˈan. Most likely, borrowed from a Turkic source (cf. Yakut kulgaːk, Tatar qolaq, etc.), although the "vowel metathesis" remains unexplained. Cf. in older sources: kalˈogan (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), kolog (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 385].

Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Kl.); quoted as utkʸen-ˈoŋ in (Pal.). The form is marked as plural (Lat. aures), so -oŋ is most likely the plural marker. Cf. also utkuy 'ear' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 372].

Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict., Pal.).

S. Starostin 1995: 198 (*ʔɔgde ~ *ʔɔqtV). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages except for Kott. Replacements: Kott kaloːx is most likely borrowed from a Turkic source (see notes on the Kott entry). Reconstruction shape: This issue is very problematic. H. Werner places under doubt the common etymologization of Ket-Yugh items, on one hand, and the Arin / Pumpokol forms, on the other. However, the only serious problem preventing such a comparison is the metathesized order of consonants, and it may be easily circumvented. Pace S. Starostin's reconstruction, it seems more reasonable to view the Arin / Pumpokol consonantal sequence as original, since (a) Arin and Pumpokol belong to different primary branches of Yeniseian, with metathesis in Proto-Ket-Yugh a more economic solution than independent metatheses in Arin and Pumpokol; (b) all other instances of *-KT- ~ *-QT-type sequences in Proto-Yeniseian generally yield assimilated -T(T)-type sequences in Arin. The somewhat tentative reconstruction *ʔɔdɢe, despite the uniqueness of its medial cluster, accounts for all the resulting diversity, except for stem-final -n in Arin and Pumpokol, which is probably just the old plural marker, sometimes fused with the root (cf. the variation between the old singular utkuy and the plural-turned-singular utqʸöː-n- in Arin). Semantics and structure: The unusual stem structure *ʔɔdɢe almost certainly implies a compound origin, but whatever it was, the fusion probably pre-dated the Proto-Yeniseian stage, and it is doubtful that this particular mystery will ever be resolved to general satisfaction.

Werner 2002: I, 110; Werner 1993: 22. Neuter gender. Plural form: baŋ-ɨn {баӈэн}. Polysemy: 'earth / land / place'. Quoted as baʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 137]; as baŋ, pl. baːŋ-an ~ baːŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 188].

Werner 2011: 122. Neuter gender. Quoted as baʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 137].

Castrén 1858: 221. Plural form: paŋ-an. Polysemy: 'earth / land / place'. Cf. in older sources: pak (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 314].

Dulzon 1961: 168 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as pem in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 110].

Dulzon 1961: 168 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 205; Werner 2002: I, 110. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, although the front row vocalism in Arin (peŋ) and Pumpokol (biŋ) remains unexplained. Based on some additional evidence, it is quite possible that this situation reflects a former bisyllabic structure (i. e. Proto-Yeniseian *baʔŋi or *baʔŋe), with deletion of the final vowel after a glottal stop in Ket-Yugh and root vowel assimilation in Arin and Pumpokol; however, this hypothesis requires further verification.

Werner 2002: II, 191; Werner 1993: 87. This form phonetically functions as the 1st/2nd/3rd m. p. sg. member of the intransitive verbal paradigm ('I eat', etc., without explicit marking of the object within the verbal form), but in reality, as seen in comparison with the rest of the paradigm as well as data from phonetically conservative dialects, is to be analyzed as *d=sʸiy-a / *k=sʸiy-a etc., where the first morpheme is the subject marker, and sʸi-...-a is a composite verbal stem (usually assimilated to si-...-e in actual conjugation). Cf. the paradigmatic data in [Werner 2002: I, 359-360]: t=sʸîy ~ t=sʸîːy-e ~ t=sʸîːy 'I eat', past tense t=sʸî-lʸ ~ t=sʸîː-lʸ-e ~ t=sʸîː-lʸ 'I ate'.

Werner 2011: 127. The paradigm of this formally intransitive (without explicit object marking within the paradigm) verb is structured exactly the same way as in Ket: 1sg. di=siʰːy ~ t=siʰːy 'I eat', past tense di=siʰː-r ~ t=siʰː-r 'I ate' (reduced from earlier *di=siʰː-y-a, *di=siʰː-r-a, etc., where *-a is the same verbal root as in *diˑ-p < *di=b=a 'I eat it', see below).

Castrén 1858: 217. Past tense: toːp-o-l-oːk-ŋ, imperative: toːp-aː-l-če-k. Composite verb; the simple root toːp has either an infinitive meaning ('to eat') or a substantive one ('food'). The older sources quote a different, not easily identifiable form: bag (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 309], where b= may be the 3rd p. inanimate object prefix, but the root remains unclear.

Dulzon 1961: 166 (M., Dict., Pal.); quoted as šan in (Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The forms dɨ=si-an (Kl.), dɨ=siy-an (Pal.) are, in all likelihood, really Yugh in origin.

S. Starostin 1995: 274 (*siɢ-; later amended to *siː- in [YED # 632]). Alternately reconstructed as *siʔǝgǝ- in [Werner 2002: I, 360]. Distribution: Preserved as a verbal root with its original basic meaning in Ket-Yugh and possibly in Arin and Pumpokol, but only in derived stems in Kott. Replacements: In Kott, the old verbal root 'to eat' is still preserved in the nominal derivate ši-g 'food, meal', but in the verbal paradigm, it has been replaced with a complex formation on the basis of the verbal root toːp- = Ket-Yugh *=dɔp 'to drink'. The semantic shift {'to drink' > 'to eat'} seems strange, but the situation may have been more complex (see notes on 'to drink' for further details). Reconstruction shape: The reconstruction siː- is essentially based on Ket-Yugh forms, as well as on Kott ši-g if the velar element is detached as an old nominal suffix. Attested Arin and Pumpokol forms are more difficult to interpret as far as their morphemic constituency is concerned; in addition, initial s- in Pumpokol sogo is irregular (normally, the standard development *s- > t- should be expected). Unfortunately, we know so little of Arin and Pumpokol verbal morphology that no satisfactory explanations can be foreseen; we have to rely on the initial consonant as the only significant piece of evidence for not suggesting lexical replacement in any of these languages. Semantics and structure: There is no way of telling if the complex, tripartite system of lexical roots used to express the meaning 'to eat' in Ket-Yugh, was an innovation or should be traced back to the Proto-Yeniseian stage. Currently, Ket-Yugh *siː- is the only root out of the three (*siː-, *=a, *=dɔq) that finds more or less reliable external parallels, and for that reason, we choose it as the default equivalent for 'to eat' in Proto-Yeniseian.

Werner 2002: I, 359; Werner 1993: 36. This root is encountered in the transitive verbal paradigm ('I eat smth.', with the normally inanimate object of eating marked with the usual morpheme -b- ~ -v- ~ -p-), where it is phonetically preserved only in archaic dialects. Cf. diˑ=p= ~ diˑ=b=a ~ diˑ=v=a {дип ~ дипь} 'I eat it', past tense d=b=iˑ=lʸ= ~ d=b=iˑ=lʸ=e {дбиль} 'I ate it'. It must be exactly the same root as in the intransitive verb sʸi-...-a, and, since it is encountered in both paradigms, should be considered the main basic equivalent for the meaning 'eat' in Ket. However, we still include the morpheme sʸi- as a lexicostatistical synonym, since it is also encountered in basic usage, and neither internal nor external data show it to have ever possessed a meaning different from 'eat' or 'food'.

    Other peculiarities of the meaning 'eat' in Ket include: (1) the infinitive for both -a and sʸi-...-a is ˈilʸiŋ ~ ˈilʸeŋ [Werner 2002: I, 359]. While -iŋ is a well-known productive suffix participating in the formation of infinitives, the morpheme ilʸ- looks suppletive, unless it is actually the result of a (rare, but attested) incorporation of the past tense marker within the infinitive. If so, ilʸiŋ historically = *i-lʸ-a-iŋ, with the original root once again lost due to complex morphophonology. Cf. also the perfectly regular imperative form i=lʸ= 'eat!' (< *i=lʸ=a), which could itself serve as the basis for this infinitive formation;

    (2) An entirely different paradigm is available for situations that require multiple animated participants (e. g. 'I eat him', 'she eats me', etc.): in this case, the usual stem is -dɔq [Werner 2002: I, 201]: dˈi=ɣ=a=rɔq 'I eat him', d=ˈiː=rɔq (< *di=ɣ=i=rɔq) 'I eat her', etc. Since the meaning 'to eat smbd. (people, animate creatures etc.)' is less usual and basic than the meaning 'to eat (food)', we do not see this paradigm as eligible for inclusion. One old source (Dulzon 1968) also mentions the existence of the variant -dɔ in addition to -dɔq, but this has not been confirmed.

Werner 2011: 127. As in Ket, this root is primarily encountered in the transitive verbal paradigm: 1 sg. diˑ=p= 'I eat it' (< *di=b=a), past tense d=i=b=iˑ=r 'I ate it' (< *di=b=i=r=a). The original root is still seen in the plural form: 1 pl. diˑ=b=a-n 'we eat it', past tense di=b=iˑ=r=a-n 'we ate it'. The infinitive form is ˈiriŋ = Ket ˈilʸiŋ (see notes on Ket). Also, as in Ket, the meaning 'to eat (smbd. rather than smth.)' is expressed by a separate verbal root, =dɔχ [Werner 2011: 127].

0

Werner 2002: I, 256; Werner 1993: 131. Neuter gender. Plural form: eˑŋ ~ ˈɛŋǝn {еӈ}. Quoted as ɛʔy₂, pl. eˑŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 148]; as eŋ ~ eːŋ, pl. eäŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 236].

Werner 2011: 112. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɛŋ-ǝn ~ ɛŋ-ɨn. Quoted as eŋ₁, pl. ɛŋ-ǝn₅ in [Werner 1977: 148].

Castrén 1858: 215. Plural form: šuley-aŋ. It has been suggested by Ye. Khelimskiy that the word is a borrowing from Samoyed (cf. Mator šlʸoy 'egg'), but the word has no Common Samoyed, let alone Uralic, etymology, so for the present moment it is not recommended to score it as an obvious loanword. Cf. in older sources: šulˈey (M., Dict., Kl.), šulep (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 394].

Dulzon 1961: 189 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as ag-en 'eggs' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 256].

Dulzon 1961: 189 (Dict., Kl.). Presumably a plural form, where -aŋ is the plural suffix. The alternate form eg (Kl.) is really Yugh (= eŋ q.v.).

S. Starostin 1995: 232 (*yeŋ ~ *yɔŋ). Alternately reconstructed as sg. *eʔy, pl. *eŋ in [Werner 2002: I, 256]. Distribution: Preserved (often in a morphologically modified form) in most Yeniseian records, with the exception of Kott (probably). Replacements: Kott šuley has no clear etymology. It is either (a) a borrowing from Samoyed (see notes on the Kott entry); or (b) a compound formation: šul- '?' + -ey 'egg'. If it were possible to prove the latter case, there would be no need to postulate lexical replacement; but since the origins and meaning of the mysterious component šul remain unclear, such a replacement has to be postulated, at least "technically". Reconstruction shape: A very tricky situation here. In Ket-Yugh, apart from the general paradigm 'egg' (sg. *ɛʔy, pl. *e-ŋ), there is also a form ɔŋ, attested in the words for 'roe': Ket sg. ɔŋ-disʸ (where the second component = 'eye' q.v.), pl. ɔŋ-nʸiŋ. H. Werner regards 'egg' and 'roe' as two different etyma; S. Starostin suggests that the two may be etymologically linked if the vowel gradation reflects some sort of old "Ablaut", as in certain other nominal stems (e. g. 'dog', etc.). The opposition between 'egg' and 'roe' is also not as well pronounced in the rest of the Yeniseian languages as it is in Ket-Yugh (cf. Arin aŋ 'egg', but Kott dʸanan 'roe', Assan dialect anaŋ id.). One possible scenario is therefore to suggest this early paradigm: sg. *yeʔy (> Ket ɛʔy), pl. *yɔ-ŋ (> Ket-Yugh ɔŋ- 'roe'; Arin aŋ 'egg', with pl. > sg.) with various subsequent shifts: (a) in Yugh, plural eŋ has replaced singular ɛʔy; (b) in Arin, *yɔ-ŋ 'eggs' > aŋ 'egg', *yɔŋ-nǝŋ 'roe' > uy-nun; (c) in Pumpokol, *yɔŋ > *taŋ (regularly, *d- should rather be expected, cf. 'leaf' q.v., but a transcriptional mistake is not out of the question); the old plural form becomes singular, and a new plural is formed: *taŋ-aŋ > *tanʸ-aŋ with dissimilation. The vowel gradation between *yeʔy and *yɔ-ŋ would then date back to pre-Proto-Yeniseian (e. g. early *yɔʔy > *yɛʔy under the influence of two palatal glides?).

Werner 2002: I, 187; Werner 1993: 35. Neuter gender. Plural form: dɛ̂sʸ {дэсь} (dual) / dˈɛsʸ-taŋ {дэсьтаӈ} (plural). Quoted as deˑsʸ₁, pl. dɛʰːsʸi₄ (N.-Imb.) / dɛsʸ₄ (S.-Imb.) /dual/, dɛsʸtǝŋ₆ /plural/ in [Werner 1977: 143]; as des, pl. deɛs in [Castrén 1858: 181].

Werner 2011: 77. Neuter gender. Plural form: dɛʰːs ('pair of eyes'), but dˈɛs-aŋ ~ dˈɛs-ɨŋ ('many eyes'). Quoted as des₁, pl. dɛʰːs₄ ('pair'), dɛs-eŋ₅ ('many') in [Werner 1977: 143].

Castrén 1858: 217. Plural form: teːč-ag-an (partial suppletion, formed from an unattested complex sg. stem *teːč-ag/a/). Cf. in older sources: tečagan (M., Dict., Kl.), tieŋ (Pal.) [Verner 1990: 298] (all of these forms are plural, but the one in (Pal.) must be more archaic than the rest).

Dulzon 1961: 162 (M., Dict., Kl., Pal.). Probably a plural form ('eyes'). Cf. also tenkt 'eye' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 187] (probably = te-ŋ 'eyes' + an unidentified suffix).

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

S. Starostin 1995: 220. Alternately reconstructed as *detʸ ~ *des in [Werner 2002: I, 187]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are quite regular (Pumpokol -t is a regular reflexation of Proto-Yeniseian *-s). Semantics and structure: In S. Starostin's reconstruction, final *-s is interpreted as a fossilized singulative suffix, a fuller variant of which may also be seen in *xu-sa 'one' q.v. and several other archaic nominal stems (e. g. 'stone' q.v.). This argumentation is solidly supported by Arin tie-ŋ, which probably preserves a trace of the archaic paradigm: sg. *de-s, pl. *de-ŋ (the latter form shifted to *des-ŋ in Proto-Ket-Yugh by analogy).

Werner 2002: I, 481; Werner 1993: 61. Neuter gender. Quoted as kɨʔt₂ in [Werner 1977: 158]; as kɨt ~ kɨːt ~ kɨet, pl. kɨt-ɜŋ ~ kɨed-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 168].

Werner 2011: 133. Quoted as kɨʔt₂ in [Werner 1977: 158].

Castrén 1858: 205. Plural form: kiːr-aŋ.

Not attested. Cf., however, ki '(it is) fat' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 481], which probably contains the same root.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 228. Alternately reconstructed as *kɨʔʎ ~ *kɨʔt in [Werner 2002: I, 481]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages where attested, but not found in Arin and Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are fully regular. Semantics and structure: As in the attested language, the Proto-Yeniseian word was probably applicable to both hard 'fat' and liquid 'oil'.

Werner 2002: I, 66; Werner 1993: 19. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈasʸ-eŋ {асеӈ}. Quoted as asʸ₄ (S.-Imb.) / aːsʸ₄ ~ asʸ₄ (Bak., Sur.), aːsʸi₄ ~ asʸ₄ (Kur.), pl. asʸeŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 135]; as aːs, pl. aːs-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 159].

Werner 2011: 131. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈas-ɨŋ ~ ˈas-eŋ. Quoted as aʰːs₄, pl. as-ɨŋ₅ ~ as-eŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 135].

Castrén 1858: 201. Plural form: ˈič-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: ič-an (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 347] (the form is plural).

Werner 2002: I, 66. Attested only in (Kh.); the form is transparently plural ('feathers').

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 205 (*ʔVːsi). Alternately reconstructed as *aʔǝsǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 66]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Consonantal correspondences are regular and transparent. Vocalic correspondences are unclear (S. Starostin does not reconstruct the root vowel), but the data suggest that, most likely, the stem-final *-i has influenced the root vocalism in the Kott-Arin branch (*ʔaːsi > *ʔiːsi).

Werner 2002: I, 145; Werner 1993: 28. Neuter or feminine gender. Quoted as bɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 140]; as bok, pl. bog-eːŋ ~ bog-aːŋ in [Castrén 1858: 190].

Werner 2011: 133. Neuter or feminine gender. Plural form: bɔgˈ-eːŋ ~ bɔg-ɨn. Quoted as bɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 140].

Castrén 1858: 208. Plural form: hat-i ~ hat-an. Cf. in older sources: xott (M., Dict., Kl.,), xot (Pal.), xat (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 340-341].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as qot in (Pal.); as kot in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 305].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 212. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol. Replacements: In Kott and Arin (probably, in Proto-Kott-Arin), replaced by a nominalization of Proto-Yeniseian *qɔʔt 'to burn' q.v.; the shift {'to burn' > 'fire'} is typologically trivial. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and trivial except for the palatalization *-k > -č in Pumpokol (there are very few examples on final *-k in Pumpokol altogether); it is possible that this palatalization reflects traces of an original second syllable vowel, i. e. the reconstruction could be amended to *boʔke or *boʔki.

Werner 2002: I, 396; Werner 1993: 49. Feminine gender. Singular and plural forms are identical. Same word as 'meat' q.v.; in the meaning 'fish', the idiomatic expression ulʸ-d îˑsʸ (literally 'water's meat') may be used if necessary. Quoted as iˑsʸ₁ 'fish / meat' in [Werner 1977: 151]; as isʸ 'fish' in [Castrén 1858: 162].

Werner 2011: 134. Feminine gender. Singular and plural forms are identical. Same word as 'meat' q.v. Quoted as iˑsʸ₁ 'fish / meat' in [Werner 1977: 151].

Castrén 1858: 216. Plural form: teːg-an. Cf. in older sources: tig (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), teg (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 361].

Dulzon 1961: 180 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Initial il= is most likely a fossilized prefix, same as in 'dog' q.v. Quoted as il=ta in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 267].

Dulzon 1961: 180 (Dict.). Quoted as gˈite in (Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 214. Alternately reconstructed as *tʸiʔǝgǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 267]. Distribution: Preserved in the original meaning in Kott-Arin and in Pumpokol. Replacements: In Ket-Yugh, replaced in the meaning 'fish' with *ʔiˑs 'meat' and only preserved in the meaning 'snake': Ket tîɣ, Yugh čiːʰk (see under 'snake'). The shift chain {'meat' > 'fish / meat'}, {'snake' > 'fish'} is, overall, the most economic solution, given the distribution of cognates in daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The correspondence "Kott-Arin *t- : Pumpokol h- ~ x-" is regular and reflects Proto-Yeniseian *c- (see 'hair'), although the proper phonetic interpretation of this phoneme is questionable. Likewise, Pumpokol -t- is known to at least occasionally reflect Proto-Yeniseian *k (cf. *ʔok 'sterlet' > Pumpokol ot), so this correspondence is also regular.

Werner 2002: I, 200. In Ket proper, this verbal root participates in several paradigms with very close meanings: (a) simple verb, cf.: dˈiˑ=rɔq 'I fly', past tense d=ˈi=n=dɔq; (b) with directional preverb =t=, cf.: da=t=ˈa=y=dɔq 'she flies', past tense da=t=ˈɔ=lʸ=dɔq (possibly in the meaning 'to fly (around)' rather than 'to fly (somewhere)').

    Possible secondary synonym: kɨˑ {кы} 'to fly (forth)' [Werner 2002: I, 483; Werner 1993: 60], as in: da=kˈɨ-(ɣ)-a-vet 'she flies', past tense da=kˈɨ-ɣ-ɔ-lʸ-bet.

    Still another option is a verb for 'flying' that usually appears in the form -ɔk or -ɜk in several paradigms, such as: diˑ=ɣ=ɜk ~ diˑ=ɣ=ɔk 'I (will) fly (forth)' [Werner 2002: I, 201, 482]; cf. also, with the preverb =k=, da=k=aˑ=y=ɔk 'she flies forth', past tense da=k=ˈɔ=y=ɔk. (It is this paradigm that is probably surmised in Castrén's present tense koːigaq, past tense kolʸaŋoq 'to fly' [Castrén 1858: 168], although his final uvular is quite out of place). Overall, the situation here is very complex, possibly with several contaminated stems. For the most basic entry, we choose the form that appears to be the least marked in terms of specifying the direction of flight.

Werner 2011: 137. Infinitive form; quoted as dɔʰːχ₄ in [Werner 1977: 145]. As in Ket, this verbal root has two different paradigms: (a) simple, cf. di=y=dɔχ 'I fly', past tense d=iˑ=r=dɔχ ~ d=i=n=dɔχ; (b) with directional preverb =č=, cf.: di=č=ˈa=y=dɔˑχ 'I fly', past tense di=č=ˈɔʰː=r=dɔʰːχ.

   Possible secondary synonyms are also the same as in Ket: (a) kɨʰːχ 'to fly' in da=kɨʰːχ-aʰː-getʸ 'she flies', etc. [Werner 2011: 138]; (b) =gɜk 'to fly (forth, away)' in dˈi=g=a=gɜk 'I fly away', etc. [ibid.].

Castrén 1858: 225. An idiomatic expression, consisting of an auxiliary verb and the nominalized stem f=a=ta-ga, which is the same as the first half of the verb f=a=ta-g-aːk-ŋ 'to stand up, rise' (directional preverb f= + root =ta-).

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 223. Alternately reconstructed as *doʔǝqǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 200]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh, but not in Kott; not attested in either Arin or Pumpokol. Replacements: In Kott, the word may have been replaced by an idiomatic expression, derived from the verbal root 'to rise', provided that the semantic notation of M. Castrén ('to fly' and not 'to fly up, to soar', etc., was correct. The root *=doːq, nevertheless, is still attested in Kott in the meaning 'to jump': a=š=toːk-ŋ, past tense a=l=toːk-ŋ. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket and Yugh are regular and trivial. Semantics and structure: Based on the Kott parallels, the verb may have been polysemous in Proto-Yeniseian: 'to jump / to fly' (although the situation could also reflect a semantic shift from 'fly' to 'jump' in Kott). S. Starostin suggests analyzing the verbal stem *=doːq as composite, with a fused directional prefix, based on the occurrence of semantically similar verbs with different initial consonants, e. g. Kott i=tʰak-ŋ 'jump' (? < *t=ɔq-) and Ket-Yugh *k=ɨːq- 'to fly (forth)' (see notes on Ket-Yugh). However, there is no firm Yeniseian-internal evidence to justify this conclusion: all of these verbs might just as well represent different roots (note also the significant differences in vocalism between all the three). More systematic research on this issue is necessary to clarify the situation; for now, it is premature to confidently segment out *=d= as a separate morphological element.

Werner 2002: I, 153. Neuter gender. Plural form: bˈulʸ-aŋ {буляӈ}. Quoted as buˑlʸ₁, pl. bulʸ-ǝŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 142]; as bul, pl. buol-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 190]. Quite distinct from kiʔsʸ 'leg' [Werner 2002: I, 434].

Werner 2011: 145. Neuter gender. Plural form: bˈul-ɨŋ. Quoted as bul₁, pl. bul-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 142]. Quite distinct from kiʔs 'leg' [Werner 2011: 85].

Castrén 1858: 222. Plural form: pul-aŋ. There is no indication of any lexical opposition between 'foot' and 'leg' in Castrén's materials. Cf. in older sources: pul (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 338].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as a=pil in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 153]; status of initial a= is unclear - it may be a fossilized possessive prefix.

Dulzon 1961: 174 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The form is most likely plural in origin ('feet'). Actually, the meaning 'feet' is somewhat dubious in the light of external evidence - 'legs' seems to would have been a more accurate semantic equivalent, but, since the original language of the dictionary is Latin ('pedes'), the semantics remains ambiguous.

S. Starostin 1995: 213; Werner 2002: I, 153. Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for Pumpokol, but even there the attested "replacement" is somewhat dubious. Replacements: In Pumpokol, Proto-Yeniseian *bul 'foot' may have been replaced with an- = Arin an 'thigh', Kott aːn-ar 'thigh' id. [S. Starostin 1995: 181]. The semantic development 'thigh' > 'foot' is, however, more dubious than the development 'thigh' > 'leg', so there is a probability that Pumpokol an-iŋ really means 'legs', whereas the proper word for 'feet' was not recorded. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular except for the enigmatic i instead of u in all Arin sources.

Werner 2002: II, 381-382. Predicative form: uˑt-sʸ. Plural form: ˈut-iŋ ~ ˈut-iŋ-sʸ-in. In [Werner 1993: 115], listed only in the derived form ˈut-al {утал}; it may be so that in Ket proper it is this derived stem that has a more frequent usage, unlike in Yugh. Quoted as uːt ~ ut-aːl ~ uːt-al 'voll, ganz' in [Castrén 1858: 165]. Secondary synonym: qɔ ([Werner 2002: II, 93; Werner 1993: 66]), more frequently used in idiomatic expressions (such as sʸiˑlʸe-qɔ "all summer", qip-qɔ "full moon", etc.).

Werner 2011: 326. Plural form: ut-iŋ. Predicative form: ˈut-si 'it is full'. Quoted as uˑt₁, pl. ut-iŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 189]. As in Ket, also attested as a derivative form with an additional suffix: ˈut-al 'full' [Werner 2011: 326]. Secondary synonyms also include (a) χo ~ χɔ 'whole, full, complete' (usually in idiomatic expressions such as χep-χo "full moon", etc.); (b) pˈɔlɔn- in pˈɔlɔn-aʰː-b-an 'it becomes full' (borrowed from Russian полный 'full').

Castrén 1858: 204. Cf. also uːt-am 'all, whole' [ibid.].

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 201. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages where attested, but not found in Arin or Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and generally trivial (the vowel in the second syllable could probably have been *-i as well).

Werner 2002: II, 23. A complicated verb, used only with the rare preverb n= and with the obligatory inanimate object marker =b=. Specific forms iclude d=ˈa=nʸ=b=o 'he gives (to) him', past tense d=ˈa=nʸ=b=i=lʸ=o, d=ˈi=nʸ=b=o 'he gives (to) her', past tense d=ˈi=nʸ=b=i=lʸ=o, etc.

Werner 2011: 148. See notes on Ket. Specific forms include d=ˈa=n=b=u 'he gives (to him)', past tense d=ˈa=n=b=ɨ=r=u, d=ˈi=n=b=u 'he gives (to) her', past tense d=ˈi=n=b=ɨ=r=u, etc.

Castrén 1858: 130, 210. 1st p. sg.; cf. also past tense hi=l=i=peːn-aŋ, imperative hi=lʸ=en. This complex verb consists of the root =peːn- (although the fact that p disappears in the imperative could hint at its original affixal status) and an unclear prefixal component hi= or h=. The strange form farak 'I give' (Kh.) in one of the older sources is unclear [Verner 1990: 302].

Werner 2002: I, 438. Attested only in (Kh.). The first two syllables are unclear (separate lexical stem in a compound verb? a string of adverbial prefixes and conjugation markers?), but =penʸ- is segmentable as a root and comparable with Kott =peːn- q.v.

Not attested.

No previously postulated reconstructions. Distribution: Only attested in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: There are altogether three different roots / stems attested with the meaning 'to give' in various Yeniseian languages. Of these: (a) Kott-Arin *=pen- (always functions as the second root in a composite stem, with differing first elements) is compared by S. Starostin in [YED # 962] with Yugh =fɨn in the composite verbal stem χˈɜdʸiŋ=fɨn ~ χˈɜdʸiŋ=fan 'to give back; to give away' (also attested as χˈɜdʸiŋ=fɨtʸ with unclear consonantal mutation). However, external Ket evidence shows that it is Yugh χˈɜdʸiŋ-, not =fɨn, that carries the main lexical meaning of 'give back, give away' (= Ket qˈɜr-am ~ qˈɜr-aŋ id. [Werner 2002: II, 146]). Considering that in Kott and Arin, =pen- is also not found on its own, it is more likely that the verb was a general "directional" auxiliary in Proto-Yeniseian rather than an original 'to give'; (b) Ket-Yugh =aq, likewise, is a verbal root with much broader semantics than 'to give'. Consequently, the only verbal stem that is attested exclusively in the meaning 'to give' is Ket-Yugh *n=...=o. Furthermore, its highly unusual shape (monovocalic root + very rare directional prefix) is an additional indirect hint at archaicity. We very tentatively set it up as the optimal candidate for the Swadesh meaning 'to give' in Proto-Yeniseian. Reconstruction shape: Since the stem n=...=o is only attested in Ket-Yugh, the Proto-Yeniseian equivalent could be slightly different, but at least it is not highly likely that the monovocalic root could have contained additional consonants (in this position, most of them would have yielded traces in modern dialects).

Werner 2002: 1, 49; Werner 1993: 32. Cf. specific forms: d=ˈa=v=aq 'he gives (to) him', past tense d=ˈɔ=v=iy=aq; d=ˈi=v=aq 'he gives (to) her', past tense d=ˈi=v=iy=aq. The same forms are quoted as d=a=b=aːq, past tense d=oː=b=e=d=iːy=aq in [Castrén 1858: 180]. Like n=...=o, this verb is also always used with the inanimate object marker =b=, although, when the indirect object is expressed by the 1st or 2nd p., the object marker inexplicably migrates to the position preceding the indirect object (as in: d=b=ˈi=ɣ=oq 'he gives to you', past tense d=b=ˈu=ɣ=aq; d=b=ˈi=r=aq 'he gives to me', past tense d=b=ˈu=r=aq). This may only be explained through a suppletive paradigm, where forms with the 3rd p. obj. follow a different model from those with the 1st/2nd p. object. In these forms, =b(i)= should be judged as an independent root ("modifier"), derived from biʔ 'thing', rather than a grammatical marker. Hence, the complete paradigm would be aq / bi-...-aq.

    The semantic difference between n=...=o and (bi-...)-aq is not entirely clear, although the latter verb is usually suspected of denoting momentary action, contrasting with the "prolonged" (habitual) semantics of the former. The issue is not entirely resolved, and in any case, even if this is correct, we have to include both verbs as synonyms.

Werner 2011: 147. Cf. specific forms: d=a=b=aʰːχ 'he gives (to) him', past tense d=o=u=m=nʸ=aʰːχ; d=i=b=aʰːχ 'he gives (to) her', past tense d=iː=m=nʸ=aʰːχ. The same irregular inversion of the object marker =b= as in Ket happens here as well: d=b=i=g=aʰːχ 'he gives (to) you', etc. The verb is also encountered in compound formations, e. g. with =us= 'away': d=ˈus=a=y=aʰːχ 'he gives him' (literally 'gives away to him'), etc.

0

Werner 2002: I, 54; Werner 1993: 14. Predicative form; cf. ˈaqta kɛʔt 'good man' without the suffix. Quoted as aːqta ~ aqta 'good, fresh' in [Castrén 1858: 157]. Cf. aqtǝ-m₆ 'good' (adverbial form) in [Werner 1977: 183].

Werner 2011: 161. Quoted as aχta₆ in [Werner 1977: 183].

Castrén 1858: 207. The root is hag-; -ši is an infrequent adjectival suffix. Synonymous form: hamaː 'good' [Castrén 1858: 209], cf. also haŋo 'better'. It is not clear if the two words are related through some morphological model, or belong to different etymologies. Cf. in older sources: xamagit 'good' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 386] (probably xama-xit 'good person').

Werner 2002: I, 52. Attested only in (Kh.), as part of the compound bergar=ɨktu, probably = 'very good' (where berga-r- = 'big' q.v.).

Not attested properly. The recorded forms ekte-ket '(it is) good' [Dulzon 1961: 170], ekte-m 'good' (German gut) [Dulzon 1961: 187] are only present in (Pal.), where Yugh forms are frequently recorded as "Pumpokol", and these particular ones definitely look Yugh rather than "proper" Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 230. Alternately reconstructed as *aqtə in [Werner 2002: I, 54]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but not attested in Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Proto-Ket-Yugh *aqta is segmentable into the original root morpheme *aq- + the same suffix as in im-da 'small' q.v. (with phonetic assimilation). This allows for an easy and direct comparison with Kott hag-, where all the correspondences are regular. If Arin =ɨk-tu belongs here as well, -tu is the predicative suffix, i. e. Arin would be preserving the original root without any further derivational suffixes, unlike Ket and Kott.

Werner 2002: II, 221. With the predicative suffix -sʸ; cf. also sʸˈɜnʸ-iy 'to become green' [ibid.]. Meaning glossed as 'blue / green / brown' (although 'brown' is very suspicious: it is only confirmed by North Ket sʸɜʔnʸ qɔːye 'brown bear', quoted by Werner without justification; note also the glottal stop, lacking in other examples - the expression should be verified). Quoted as sʸon 'blue' in [Castrén 1858: 188]; this source attributes the meaning 'green' to xaɢal-eŋ 'blue / green', derived from xaːɢal 'gall' [Castrén 1858: 171], but this is a Yugh form, not Ket proper, and the gloss is not confirmed in more recent sources.

Werner 2011: 161. Transparent borrowing from Russian зеленый 'green'. Werner also lists the form xaʁal-eŋ (= xaɢal-eŋ) from [Castrén 1858: 171], but it is not attested in his own Yugh records (see notes on Ket for etymology).

Not attested. Cf., however, the form šapkan 'it is green' (Russ. зелено) (Kh.) in one of the older sources [Verner 1990: 314].

Dulzon 1961: 167 (M., Dict., Kl.). Polysemy: 'green / yellow'. Quoted as ittˈɨma in (Pal.). Attested as itima 'blue', itima-tko 'green' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 385].

Dulzon 1961: 168, 182 (Dict.). Polysemy: 'green / blue'. Quoted as kˈomul-zi in (Pal.). Dubious (the form could actually be Ket-Yugh rather than Pumpokol; cf. Adelung's kɨalmas 'green' for Ket [Dulzon 1961: 168]). Final -si is a standard Yeniseian adjectival suffix.

Not reconstructible. The item is poorly attested in all extinct languages; not a single isogloss between two different languages can be detected; and there are reasons to assume that the meaning 'green' was not lexically distinct even in Proto-Ket-Yugh.

Werner 2002: II, 304; Werner 1993: 105. Plural (collective) form only. Quoted as tǝˑŋǝ₁ (N.-Imb.) / tǝˑŋ₁ (S.-Imb.) in [Werner 1977: 184]; as tʸɜːŋ ~ teɛŋ ~ tɨːŋ, pl. tʸɜːŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 178].

Werner 2011: 161. Quoted as čǝˑŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 184].

Castrén 1858: 209. Plural form: heŋay-aŋ. Synonym: eːk 'hair' [Castrén 1858: 200]. Although the semantic difference is not indicated in Castrén's dictionary, external comparanda make it very probable that heŋai meant 'head hair', whereas eːk would rather mean 'body hair', 'fur', etc. The suffix -ay is a frequent body part suffix in Kott (cf. 'head', etc.). Cf. in older sources: hˈiŋay-an (M., Kl., Pal., Dict.), inagay (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 294].

Dulzon 1961: 161 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Also quoted as qiagaŋ in (Dict.); as kegan in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 313].

Dulzon 1961: 161 (Dict., Pal.). Quoted as qɨŋa in (Kl.). Distinct from tümen 'hair (on body)' [ibid.].

S. Starostin 1995: 213. Alternately reconstructed as *tʸǝŋǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 304] and analyzed as a compound form ('head' q.v. + 'skin' q.v.). Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: The correspondence "Ket-Yugh *č- : Kott h- : Arin q- or k- : Pumpokol x-" is recurrent and, in S. Starostin's system, is interpreted as reflecting Proto-Yeniseian *c-. Such an interpretation is open to debate - in particular, due to the typologically unlikely velarization of affricates in Arin and Pumpokol, and also because of the comparable rarity of Proto-Yeniseian *c-, which would rather imply some non-trivial cluster or contextual development (cf. especially the transcription qʸ- in Arin), but there is little doubt that all the listed items do indeed belong together.

Werner 2002: I, 339; Werner 1993: 124. Neuter gender. Plural form: hˈɜŋnʸ-eŋ {хъӈнеӈ}. Quoted as hɜŋn₅, pl. hɜŋn-eŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 193]; as hɜɛŋnʸeŋ in [Castrén 1858: 174] (where this word, quite clearly plural in form, is still translated as 'Hand (von der Wurzel an)'). The stem also forms part of a large number of compound forms, e. g. hɜŋn.. teŋ 'to touch', hɜŋn-tɛt 'to move (with the hand)', hɜŋn-anʸ-sʸ 'handless', etc.

Werner 2011: 164. Neuter gender. Plural form: bˈiŋ-ɨn. Quoted as bieŋ, pl. bieŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 189].

Castrén 1858: 205. Plural form: keːgär-eŋ. Cf. in older sources: kˈeŋar-an (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) 'hand', henar-an (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) 'arm', kenar (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 361] (the difference between 'hand' and 'arm' is most likely fictitious).

Dulzon 1961: 180 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as upega in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 338]; u= may be an obscure prefix, as in u=pusɨr (Kh.) 'forehead', u=kuriy (Kh.) 'throat' etc.

Dulzon 1961: 180 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Glossed as both 'hand' (manus) and 'arm' (brachium). This actually looks like a reasonable plural form from tok (Dict., Pal., Kl.) 'finger' [Dulzon 1961: 176], so the accuracy of the semantics 'hand' is somewhat questionable.

Not reconstructible. The meaning 'hand' is notoriously unstable in Yeniseian languages: almost every language has its own etymological equivalent (sometimes two!), and most of the etymological connections are problematic. In the order of increasing probability of representing the Proto-Yeniseian equivalent for 'hand', here is what may be said about the individual candidates:

   (1) Pumpokol to-n is, in all likelihood, historically a plural from tok 'finger' = Ket tɜʔq, etc. < Proto-Yeniseian *tǝʔq 'finger' [S. Starostin 1995: 283], a concept that turns out to have been much more stable in Yeniseian than 'hand';

   (2) Yugh biʔŋ 'hand', despite phonetic similarity with Ket hɜŋn, does not regularly correspond to this word, and has no other parallels whatsoever;

   (3) The only etymological parallel for Ket lʸaʔŋ 'hand' is in Arin: lan-tʸuːŋ (M., Kl.), lʸan-puy (Kh.) 'wing' [YED # 936], and it is not very clear (e. g. both forms are clearly compounds, but their second halves remain unetymologized); nevertheless, the semantic shift 'hand' > 'wing' is theoretically possible;

   (4) Kott keːgär is compared in [YED # 341] with Yugh kɜgdʸ-at 'arm', and also, possibly, with Arin koro-nun (Kh.) 'mittens'. The Arin parallel is dubious, but the Yugh form is a good match that allows to reconstruct Proto-Yeniseian *kǝgdi-ʔaʔd, where *ʔaʔd = 'bone' q.v., possibly with the meaning 'arm' or 'armbone', but less probably 'hand' (it must be noted that Kott, apparently, does not distinguish between 'hand' and 'arm');

   (5) The best "chances" lie with the pairing of Ket hɜŋn and Arin pʸʰyaga (= pega), which allows S. Starostin to reconstruct the protoform as *pVg- [S. Starostin 1995: 254]. The semantic matching is exact, and the correspondences are generally reconcilable. However, there is some doubt as to whether the Ket word is indeed the primary equivalent for 'hand' (see notes on Ket), and, subsequently, this would influence Proto-Yeniseian semantics.

   Given this very complicated situation, we currently prefer to leave the Proto-Yeniseian spot empty, even if the Ket and Arin forms may, at least technically, be counted as lexicostatistical matches (without any serious semantic or phonetic obstacles).

Werner 2002: II, 9. More frequently encountered as lʸˈaŋ-at (< lʸaʔŋ + aʔt 'bone' q.v.). In [Werner 1993: 78] only this compound form lʸaŋat {ляӈат} is translated as 'hand' ('рука'); lʸaʔŋ {ляʼӈ} is glossed only as 'part of hand close to the wrist' ('основание кисти'). In [Castrén 1858: 175], the form lʸaːŋ-at is translated as 'Arm mit der Hand'.

    The exact difference between hɜŋn and lʸaʔŋ(-at) is hard to define. On one hand, dictionary glosses and derivatives speak in favor of a basic distinction between hɜŋn as 'hand (with fingers)' and lʸaʔŋ(-at) as 'hand + arm'. However, lʸaʔŋ is not 'arm' per se (in this meaning Ket uses the word ɨˑlʸ [Werner 2002: II, 434]). Also, published texts (such as collected by Kreynovich, Dulzon, and others) seem to regularly feature the word lʸaŋat in contexts like "take with the hand", etc., whereas hɜŋn is encountered quite rarely, if ever. For the time being, we propose treating the two words as synonymous; however, it seems that hɜŋn is the more "marked" member of the opposition, referring specifically to 'hand' as 'the fingers and the part of the hand closest to the fingers', used for 'touching', 'groping', etc., rather than 'taking'. If this explanation is proven to be correct, then hɜŋn has to be eliminated from the wordlist.

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

Dulzon 1961: 189 (Kl.).

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

Castrén 1858: 202.

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

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

Castrén 1858: 221.

Not attested.

Not attested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not attested.

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

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

Werner 2002: I, 474; Werner 1993: 59. Neuter gender. Plural form: kˈǝqta-nʸ {къқтань}. Polysemy: 'neck / collar'. Quoted as kǝˑqtɨ₁ / kǝˑqt₁ (S.-Imb.), pl. kɜqta-n₅ in [Werner 1977: 156]; as kɜaqte ~ kaqte, pl. kɜakte-neŋ in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 163. Neuter gender. Plural form: kˈɜχtɨ-ŋɨn. Quoted as kǝχtɨ₁, pl. kɜχtɨ-nɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 156].

Castrén 1858: 226. Plural form: pʰuymur-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: pumur (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 391].

Werner 2002: I, 283. Attested only in (Kh.).

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 237. Alternately reconstructed as *kǝqtǝ in [Werner 2002: I, 475]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: In Kott-Arin, replaced with *puyme ~ *puymur, of unclear origin. The reason why the Ket-Yugh word is seen as more archaic is the Kott parallel in agˈantan 'collar' (< *kagantan with dissimilation): the semantic development 'neck' > 'collar' is typologically normal, whereas the opposite would be quite strange. Subsequently, it is logical to suggest the metonymic shift {'neck' > 'collar'} for Kott-Arin, and a replacement of the original 'neck' by an innovation. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket and Kott largely follow the same pattern as in the word for 'hunger': Ket qɔːt ~ qoʁat = Kott kayante, indicating a *CVCVnt-type structure. Semantics and structure: Due to its sheer length, Proto-Yeniseian *kǝqǝnt must have contained a suffix, although the element *-nt is hardly segmentable as a productive derivative morpheme on any level.

Werner 2002: I, 429, 434; Werner 1993: 53. Predicative form (attributive form is kiʔ). Polysemy: 'new / fresh'. Quoted as attributive kiʔ, predicative kiː-sʸi₄ (Kur.) / kiː-sʸe₄ (Bak.) in [Werner 1977: 153]; as kie ~ kiʔɛ in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 227. Quoted as kiʔ₂ in [Werner 1977: 153]. Synonym: tulɨm [Werner 2011: 227], quoted as tulɨm₅ ~ tulɨm₆ in [Werner 1977: 184]. The semantic difference between the old and the new synonyms (this may be a case of "transit synonymy", see notes on Common Ket-Yugh) is not clear.

Castrén 1858: 205.

Not attested.

Not attested.

S. Starostin 1995: 227. Alternately reconstructed as *kiʔ in [Werner 2002: I, 429]. Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Kott, not attested in Arin and Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular and trivial.

Werner 2002: II, 206; Werner 1993: 87. Neuter gender. Plural form: sʸˈiɣ-a ~ sʸˈiɣ-ɛk-ŋ {сига ~ сигэкӈ} (the latter form is a composite noun, with ɛk-ŋ 'days' /pl./ as the second part; see 'sun' for further details). Quoted as sʸiˑ₁, pl. sʸiɣ-ǝ₅ in [Werner 1977: 176]; as siː, pl. si-eŋ ~ sig-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 186].

Werner 2011: 222. Neuter gender. Plural form: si-ɛk-ŋ (see notes on Ket for analysis of the plural form). Quoted as si₁ in [Werner 1977: 176]. Secondary synonym: saʰːr, pl. sˈar-ɨŋ ~ saʰːr-ɨŋ [Werner 2011: 222]; the plural form of this noun is also frequently employed as a suppletive form for si. This word corresponds to Ket saːl 'to spend the night; staying the night' [Werner 2002: II, 162], and refers to 'night' as a "time period devoid of human activity" rather than the "dark period of time".

Castrén 1858: 213. Plural form: š-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: šig (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 339].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Also quoted as say in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 206].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). Secondary synonym: toːl 'night' (Dict., Pal., Kl.) [ibid.]. The latter, judging by external comparanda, could really mean 'time of night', 'spending the night', etc.

S. Starostin 1995: 274. Alternately reconstructed as *šigǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 206]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are mostly regular. Word-final *-ɢ is reconstructed primarily on the basis of its deletion in Ket-Yugh (the other uvular consonants are usually preserved). One problem is with Pumpokol -č, which, according to S. Starostin, is an unexpected reflexation and could reflect an additional suffix or, perhaps, a compound formation with eč 'sky'. Cf., however, a similar situation with 'fire' q.v., where Pumpokol -č is also found as the equivalent of a back consonant in Ket-Yugh. This implies that the reflexation may be due to some regular conditioning, although the data are too scarce to establish this regularity.

Werner 2002: II, 38; Werner 1993: 82. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔlɨn-ɨŋ {олын-ыӈ}. Quoted as ɔlɨn₅ ~ ɔlǝn₅, pl. ɔlɨn₆ in [Werner 1977: 171]. Quoted as oln, pl. oːlen-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 163].

Werner 2011: 225. Neuter gender. Plural form: ˈɔlɨn-ɨŋ. Quoted as ɔlɨn₅ ~ ɔlǝn₅, pl. ɔlɨn-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 171].

Castrén 1858: 196. Genitive: aːŋ-i(e), plural form: aːŋ-ˈan.

Dulzon 1961: 74 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 74 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 295. Distribution: Preserved in Kott and Pumpokol; replaced in Ket-Yugh and Arin. Replacements: The isogloss between Kott and Pumpokol is further strengthened with the existence of Ket aŋgɔn 'nostrils', which H. Werner convincingly explains as *aŋ 'nose' + *qɔːn, pl. from quk 'hole' [Werner 2002: I, 45]. This means that two replacements have to be postulated: in Ket-Yugh, the old word for 'nose' was replaced with *ʔɔlɨn, and in Arin, with ˈar-quy, where -quy = 'hole', as in tˈim-quy 'window'. In theory, Ket-Yugh and Arin forms may be related [S. Starostin 1995: 197], since there are no phonetic obstacles for their common etymologization. However, significant discrepancies in the morphological structure of both words suggest that they have different origins: the Ket-Yugh form looks like a fossilized plural from *ʔɔl-, while the Arin form is a compound formation with an unidentified first part. For that reason, and also in order to avoid undesirable semantic "criss-crossing", we prefer, following H. Werner, to keep Ket-Yugh and Arin forms separate from each other for the moment. Reconstruction shape: The presence of h- in the Pumpokol form caused S. Starostin to reconstruct the Proto-Yeniseian equivalent as *xaŋ, but it should be kept in mind that the presence / absence of a word-initial laryngeal in Pumpokol is hardly conclusive evidence; Proto-Yeniseian *ʔaŋ 'nose' is definitely not excluded.

Werner 2002: I, 157; Werner 1993: 30. This is the main particle of verbal negation in Ket (should be strictly distinguished from the prohibitive at 'not!, don't!' [Werner 2002: 1, 72]). Quoted as bǝˑnʸ₁ ~ bǝnʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 141]. Quoted as bɨen in [Castrén 1858: 190].

Werner 2011: 228. This is the main particle of verbal negation in Yugh; should be strictly distinguished from the prohibitive atˈa 'not!, don't!' [Werner 2011: 228]. Quoted as bǝnʸ₁ in [Werner 1977: 141].

Castrén 1858: 227. Cf. also boː 'not!' (prohibitive) [Castrén 1858: 224]. Cf. in older sources: mon (M., Dict.) [Verner 1990: 337].

Dulzon 1961: 174 (M., Dict.). In (Kl.), the meaning is glossed as 'no', but the few available examples confirm that this is indeed the verbal negative particle 'no' (e. g. bon peŋaulʸoŋ 'I do not see').

Dulzon 1961: 174 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 294 (*wǝ-). Alternately reconstructed as *bǝ ~ *bǝn in [Werner 2002: I, 157]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but see notes on Pumpokol). Reconstruction shape: Initial *w- is reconstructed by S. Starostin on the basis of the voiced stop (or nasal m, assimilated from *b under the influence of the following n) reflexation in all languages and dialects. Semantics and structure: Proto-Yeniseian *wǝn is internally segmented into *wǝ-n by S. Starostin on the basis of Kott prohibitive boː, which is supposed to reflect original *wǝ without the nasal suffix. However, the mechanism of *wǝ-n being generated from *wǝ remains unclear. Pumpokol amut is also a strange form; if it is related here, it must go back to *a=mun-t, with an additional prefixal and suffixal component, but the nature of these components is unclear - perhaps the attested form is not really just a simple negation ('not'), but a complex predicative form (e. g. 'there is not').

Werner 2002: II, 122, 132; Werner 1993: 67. The two forms are respectively quantifying inanimate and animate objects. Predicative form: qˈusʸ-am / qˈɔk-du "he is one (alone)" ~ qˈɔk-da "she is one (alone)". The suffixes are not productive, but it hardly makes sense to regard the two forms as not representing an original single root. Quoted as quˑsʸ₁ / qɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 162, 166]; as kuok (anim.) / kog-dɛ (anim. predic.) / kusʸɛm in [Castrén 1858: 40-41].

Werner 2011: 113. The two forms are respectively quantifying inanimate and animate objects. Quoted as χus₁ / χɔʔk₂ in [Werner 1977: 162, 166].

Castrén 1858: 212. The root is huː-, as seen from the old derivative formation huː-piga 'alone' (where -piga is derived from the same root as 'man' q.v.). Cf. in older sources: hˈuča (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 341]. Cf. also xanči-xit 'one' (Kh.), where xit = 'person' q.v., but xanči shows a significantly deviant phonetic shape [ibid.].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as kʰu-zey in (Pal.) and as kui-sa in Strahlenberg's records. Cf. kus-ket 'one person' (Kh.) in [Werner 2002: II, 132].

Dulzon 1961: 75 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 306 (*χu-sa). Alternately reconstructed as *qus ~ *qut in [Werner 2002: II, 132]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: Forms such as Ket-Yugh *qɔʔ-k 'one (animate)' and Kott huː-piga 'alone' clearly imply that *-s(a) was a suffixal element in Proto-Yeniseian. Word-final *-a is a suffixal element common for most of Proto-Yeniseian numerals. As for the component *-s-, it may be compared with the singulative suffix *-s that is segmented out of archaic nominal stems such as 'eye' q.v. or 'stone' q.v. If this is the case, then it is also highly probable (as originally proposed by S. Starostin) that *-s- is the original numeric morpheme ('one'), whereas *qu- is an old deictic element, perhaps to be compared with some of the Yeniseian demonstrative pronouns. Nevertheless, on the exact Proto-Yeniseian level it was clearly the morpheme *qu- that already functioned as the primary carrier of the numeric meaning, which is why the protoform is entered as *qu-s-a and not *qu=s-a.

Werner 2002: I, 420; Werner 1993: 52. Suppletive plural: dɛʔŋ {дэʼӈ} 'people' [Werner 2002: I, 185]. Quoted as kɛʔt₂, pl. dɛʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 143, 153]; as keːt ~ kiet, pl. keɛd-eŋ (sic!) in [Castrén 1858: 167].

Werner 2011: 218. Suppletive plural: dʸɛʔŋ 'people' [ibid.]. Quoted as kɛʔt₂, pl. dʸɛʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 143, 153].

Castrén 1858: 210. Suppletive plural: čeäŋ 'people' [ibid.]. Cf. in older sources: il=it (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), xit (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 388] (the "prefix" il= may be the same as in Ket ilʸ kɛʔt 'living person').

Dulzon 1961: 187 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as kʸit in (Pal.); as kit in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: I, 420].

Dulzon 1961: 187 (Dict., Pal., Kl.).

S. Starostin 1995: 236; Werner 2002: I, 421. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular (some uncertainties remain about the original vocalism). Semantics and structure: The word had a suppletive plural on the Proto-Yeniseian level, reconstructed as *ǯeʔŋ [S. Starostin 1995: 309], probably the original plural of an unpreserved singular *ǯeʔ 'person'.

Werner 2002: II, 338; Werner 1993: 109. Masculine gender. Plural form: ˈulʸ-et-aŋ. Literally: 'water' q.v. + 'sky' (although the first root may actually be etymologically different from 'water'). Quoted as ulʸ-esʸ₅ ~ ulʸ-esʸ₆ in [Werner 1977: 187].

Werner 2011: 242. Masculine gender. Plural form: uˈr-es-aŋ. Literally: 'water' q.v. + 'sky' (although the first root may actually be etymologically different from 'water'). Quoted as ur-es₅ ~ ur-es₆ in [Werner 1977: 187].

Castrén 1858: 203. Plural form: uːr-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: ur (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 306].

Dulzon 1961: 165 (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.). Quoted as kur-aːsa in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 338] (where the second component is an Ablaut variant of es 'sky').

Dulzon 1961: 165 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The second root morpheme -ait is a morphophonological variant of eč 'sky'.

S. Starostin 1995: 297. Alternately reconstructed as *ʔuʎ(es) ~ *kʰuʎ(es) in [Werner 2002: II, 338]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages (but see notes on structure below). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. Semantics and structure: There is a problematic relationship between the listed forms and the original Proto-Yeniseian word for 'water'. In Ket-Yugh, 'rain' is easily analyzable as a compound form: *ʔur 'water' + *ʔes 'sky'. This has led to H. Werner merging the 'water' and 'rain' roots in one (*ʔuʎ 'water', *ʔuʎ or *ʔuʎ-es 'rain'). However, Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol consistently feature different resonants in the root morphemes for 'water' and 'rain', e. g. Arin kur 'rain' vs. kul 'water', Pumpokol ur-ait (where -ait < *ʔes) 'rain' vs. ul 'water'. This remains unexplained in Werner's reconstruction, but is accounted for in S. Starostin's, where original *xur 'rain' is opposed to *xur₁ 'water'. It is not excluded that the two roots are, in the end, related (through some non-trivial morphophonological connection) on a higher level than Proto-Yeniseian, but for PY it is indeed preferable to separate them. In Ket-Yugh, *xur and *xur₁, according to S. Starostin's correspondences, must have merged phonetically, so, technically, the Ket-Yugh forms listed here could just as well go back to 'water', not 'rain', but ultimately there is no strong evidence to separate them from their Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol correlates in the lexicostatistical aspect.

Werner 2002: II, 213; Werner 1993: 91. A transparent derivative of sʸuˑlʸ 'blood' q.v., formed with the aid of an inanimate object class predicative suffix. Cf. also the verb sʸˈulʸ-ey 'to become red' [Werner 2002: II, 213]. Quoted as sʸuˑlʸ-am₁ in [Werner 1977: 178]; as sʸul-em in [Castrén 1858: 188].

Werner 2011: 246. Plural form: sur-bes-iŋ ~ sur-bɛs-ɨŋ. A transparent derivative of sur 'blood' q.v., formed with the aid of the prosecutive marker -bɛʰːs (here, with the meaning 'like', 'such as'). Quoted as sur₄-bɛʰːs, pl. sur₅-bɛs-n in [Werner 1977: 178]; as sur-bes in [Castrén 1858: 187].

Castrén 1858: 215. Only attested in the infinitive form šur-um-ai-čei 'to paint red; to dye' (also šurumai baːttaŋ id.); with some doubt, the root šur- (same as 'blood' q.v.) could also be present in the adjectival form 'red', although it is not directly attested in Castrén's materials. However, no alternate equivalent is attested, either, and both internal and external data suggest that no alternative equivalent actually existed. Furthermore, cf. in older sources: šurama 'red' (M., Dict., Pal., Kl., Kh.) [Verner 1990: 324].

Dulzon 1961: 170 (M., Dict., Kl.). Strangely quoted as tʸgura in (Pal.); cf. also tula '(it is) red' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 213]. The probability of borrowing from Pumpokol, discussed in [Werner 2002: II, 213] and in S. Starostin's notes, is quite low (very few, if any, such cases in the rest of Arin data).

Dulzon 1961: 170 (Dict., Kl.). Quoted as tˈul-zi in (Pal.). The morpheme -si (-zi) is a standard adjectival suffix.

S. Starostin 1995: 278. Distribution: Preserved everywhere, with the likely exception of Arin (but see further notes). Replacements: Arin tʸuːra cannot be regarded as a regular reflexation of Proto-Yeniseian *sur- (the regular reflexation is found in Arin sur 'blood' q.v.). Since in all other Yeniseian languages the word for 'red' is transparently derived from 'blood', S. Starostin suggests either contamination with Proto-Yeniseian *tu 'raw' (not likely, since 'raw' and 'red' are rather distant from each other semantically, not to mention that *tu has no known reflexation in Arin), or borrowing into Arin from Pumpokol, which is even less likely, since this is the only such case in the entire corpus. It seems that, given the sharp distinction in consonantism, the Arin word has to be counted as etymologically different from the rest. It is possible to suggest an alternate etymology: cf. Ket-Yugh tulʸet 'red currant', Pumpokol turčari 'strawberry' [Werner 2002: II, 286], reconstructed as *tuʎ- in [S. Starostin 1995: 289]. Arin tʸuːra is phonetically and semantically ('red /berry/') compatible with these forms; in fact, it is not even excluded that *tuʎ- is the archaic Yeniseian root for 'red', preserved in most languages only within derived formations for names of red berries, whereas Arin is the only language to preserve the original form. Nevertheless, given the distribution of 'blood'-based derivatives, it is not permissible to rank it as the optimal candidate for Proto-Yeniseian 'red'. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular (see notes on 'blood'). Semantics and structure: Comparison of Ket sʸulʸ-am- and Kott šur-am- allows to suggest Proto-Yeniseian status for the adjectival stem *sur-am-, but it should be noted that Pumpokol and Yugh both show different ways of stem formation. This means that the semantic connection between 'blood' and 'red' must have been well understood at all stages of development of Yeniseian languages, allowing the derived formation to be "reformed" from time to time according to various productive models.

Werner 2002: II, 123; Werner 1993: 70. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɨˑn-eŋ {қынеӈ}. Quoted as qɔʔt₂, pl. qɨˑn-ǝŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 164]; as qoat, pl. qoad-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170]. The meaning for this word is glossed as 'winter road' ('Winterweg') in [Werner 2002]. It should be noted that the plural form is actually suppletive, but, contra [Starostin 1995: 261], it is not a plural formation from qɨˑk 'road' q.v. (the consonantal mutation would be unprecedented), but rather from qɨˑnʸ 'current, flow' [Werner 2002: II, 154] - perhaps as a result of the semantic shift from 'currents' to 'water-ways' to 'ways' in general.

Werner 2011: 333. Neuter gender. Plural form: χˈɨn-eŋ ~ χˈɨn-ɨŋ. Quoted as χɔʔt₂, pl. χɨn-eŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 164]. See notes on Ket for detailed semantics and explanation of the suppletive plural.

Castrén 1858: 209. Plural form: hay-aŋ. Castrén does not record any opposition between 'summer road' and 'winter road' (but neither does he record one for Ket, where it certainly exists, so it is quite probable that the Kott situation was inadeqautely described as well). Cf. in older sources: xɨk (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 306]; other sources list an entirely different stem - itik (M., Dict., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (M., Kl.). Quoted as kat in (Dict.). Cf. the composite form kol-kut 'road' in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 123] (etymology of the first root is unknown).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 261. Alternately reconstructed as *qɔʔt in [Werner 2002: II, 123]. Distribution: This root is attested everywhere except in Kott. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular (some usual vocalic fluctuations in Arin and Pumpokol aside). Semantics and structure: The Ket-Yugh situation with semantics is probably archaic, i. e. Proto-Yeniseian *qoʔt should be reconstructed with the meaning 'winter road'. Overall, it seems as if Ket-Yugh preserved the original lexical distinction between 'summer road' and 'winter road', whereas Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol generalized one word of the two (alternately, it is possible that only one word of the two was elicited by the inquirers - for instance, depending on the season in which the research was carried out?..).

Werner 2002: II, 154; Werner 1993: 74. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɨksʸ-eŋ {қыксеӈ} ~ qɨˑn-eŋ. Quoted as qɨˑk₁, pl. qɨksʸ-eŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 167]. The meaning for this word is glossed as 'summer road' ('Sommerweg') in [Werner 2002].

    With the peculiar distinction between two types of 'road / way' (one for the winter, one for summer, which is not particularly surprising for a Siberian hunter culture), it seems impossible to determine which one is more "basic"; for the moment, we include both words as synonyms.

Werner 2011: 333. Neuter gender. Plural form: χɨn-ɨŋ ~ χɨk-ŋ. Quoted as χɨk₁ ~ χɨʔk₂, pl. χɨn-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 167]. Same semantic properties as in the case of the Ket word.

S. Starostin 1995: 301 (*χɨχ). Alternately reconstructed as *qǝk in [Werner 2002: II, 154]. Distribution: This root is attested in Ket-Yugh and Kott, but not Arin and Pumpokol. Reconstruction shape: The exact phonemic nature of the uvulars remains unclear, because various assimilative / dissimilative processes could have obscured the original structure. However, the alternation -k / -y- in Kott does firmly suggest that the second consonant was also a uvular. Semantics and structure: The semantics 'summer road', attested in Ket-Yugh, is likely to be archaic.

Werner 2002: II, 265; Werner 1993: 99. Neuter gender. Plural form: tiˑrʸ-eˑŋ {тиреӈ}. Quoted as tiːrʸi₄ (Kur.) / tiːdǝ₄ ~ tidǝ₄ (Bak., Sur.) / tirʸ₄ (S.-Imb.), pl. tiˑrʸ-eŋ₁ / tiˑd-eŋ₁ (Bak., Sur.) in [Werner 1977: 180]; as tiedi ~ tiedie, pl. tiːd-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 176].

Werner 2011: 344. Neuter gender. Plural form: tˈidʸ-iŋ. Quoted as tiʰːtʸ₄, pl. tidʸ-iŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 180].

Castrén 1858: 219. The word is most likely a compound, where the second part = pul 'foot' q.v. and the first part is etymologically unclear (the original root may be *tʰeC-, with many possible choices for the second consonant due to high probability of assimilation with -pul). Cf. in older sources: tˈiːembulaŋ (M., Dict., Kl.), lgiembulaŋ (Pal.) [Verner 1990: 322] (the strange orthography of the latter variant is unclear). Different stem listed in (Kh.): ačigan (obviously connected with ači 'tree' q.v.).

Dulzon 1961: 169 (M., Dict.). Quoted as tʸeːm-bir-gaŋ in (Kl.); as lʸgem-birʸ-yaŋ in (Pal.) (all the forms are really plural, 'roots'). Quoted as ten-bir in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 317]. The structure of the form is the same as in Kott q.v.

Dulzon 1961: 169 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The form is quite obviously plural ('roots'). The quasi-synonymous entry tɨči (Dict.), tɨčɨ (Kl.) [ibid.] in reality represents the Yugh form q.v.

S. Starostin 1995: 217 (*čiːǯ). Alternately reconstructed as *tʰiʔǝdʸǝ ~ *tʰigǝdʸǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 265]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages, although in a seriously modified form in Kott-Arin. In Kott-Arin, replaced with *tem-bul, where *-bul may be the same root as 'foot' q.v. (S. Starostin rejects this idea because the regular Arin word for 'foot' is pil, not *pir; however, reflexes of liquid resonants in Arin are known to fluctuate rather chaotically, and it is not excluded that this particular split was influenced by different phonetic contexts or paradigmatic levellings, etc.); the first part, *tem- (-m- could be the result of assimilation with *-bul, so the second consonant is really obscure), has no known etymology. Reconstruction shape: A complicated situation. First, Ket-Yugh *tiːǯ and Pumpokol ked- are compatible with each other under the condition that the initial consonant was an affricate (*č- or *c-), dissimilated (*čiːǯ- > *tiːǯ-) in Ket-Yugh. Second, pace S. Starostin, it is actually possible to tie these forms to their Kott and Arin equivalents. Proto-Kott-Arin has *tem-bul, where *-bul may be the same root as 'foot' q.v. (S. Starostin rejects this idea because the regular Arin word for 'foot' is pil, not *pir; however, reflexes of liquid resonants in Arin are known to fluctuate rather chaotically, and it is not excluded that this particular split was influenced by different phonetic contexts or paradigmatic levellings, etc.); the first part, *tem- (-m- could be the result of assimilation with *-bul, so the second consonant is really obscure), has no known etymology, but cf. also such dialectal Assan forms as tɨy-bˈul ~ tuy-bˈul 'root': this variation can only be explained in terms of an original nominal paradigm *tey, pl. *te-n. The word 'foot' was probably attached to the original root in order to reduce homonymy (*tey-bul, pl. *te-n-bul ~ *te-n-bul-aŋ > *tem-bul/aŋ/). Subsequently, a Proto-Yeniseian reconstruction like *ciːǯ could regularly yield Kott-Arin *tiy (> *tey with vocalic dissimilation).

Werner 2002: II, 446; Werner 1993: 55. Borrowed from Russian круглый. Potential earlier synonyms include: (a) South Ket hɨrʸˈimtaŋ-sʸ [Werner 2002: I, 345], a morphologically complex form of unclear origin and not very secure from a semantic point of view; (b) teɛp in [Castrén 1858: 176], with no modern attestation.

Werner 2011: 249. Plural form: mˈɨmpɨl-ɨŋ.

Castrén 1858: 200. Meaning glossed as 'circle; round'.

Not attested.

Not attested. Cf. fɨlɨm 'circle' (Pal.) [Dulzon 1961: 170] (unless this is really a Yugh form, cf. Yugh fɨlɨm 'spindle').

Not reconstructible due to lack of sufficient data. The closest Proto-Yeniseian root would probably be *puʔl 'to turn, twirl' [S. Starostin 1995: 252], from which the Yugh form for 'round' is derived, but it is hard to make a firm statement based on data from just one language in this case.

Werner 2002: I, 337; Werner 1993: 123. Quoted as hɜnǝŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as hɜɛneŋ, pl. hɜɛneŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 252. Quoted as fɜnɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as fɜɛneŋ ~ faːneŋ, pl. fɜɛneŋ-en in [Castrén 1858: 191].

Castrén 1858: 217. Plural form: tʰagan-aŋ. Cf. in older sources: tagˈan-aŋ (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), tagan-an (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 347].

Dulzon 1961: 177 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as finʸy-aŋ in (Pal.). All forms represent morphological plurals.

Dulzon 1961: 177 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). The synonymous entry fen-ɨg (Dict., Kl.) most likely represents Yugh rather than Pumpokol. All forms represent morphological plurals.

S. Starostin 1995: 248 (*pǝnVŋ). Alternately reconstructed as *p^hǝnǝŋ in [Werner 2002: I, 337]. Distribution: Preserved everywhere except in Kott (where the meaning shifted to 'ashes' q.v.). Replacements: Kott tʰagan and the synonymous Arin form tan- are probably related to Kott tʰagar 'clay', Yugh tǝx id., and Pumpokol tɨk 'dirt, mud' < Proto-Yeniseian *tǝq- 'clay; mud' [S. Starostin 1995: 284]; the semantic shift {'clay' > 'sand'} seems plausible. Reconstruction shape: Consonantal correspondences are fully regular; root vocalism *ǝ is reconstructed primarily based on Ket-Yugh data. Semantics and structure: The form *pǝnǝŋ is obviously complex and, most likely, represents a plurale tantum, with *pǝn- as the original root.

Werner 2002: II, 314. Attested only in (Kh.). One of the few cases on the 100-wordlist where different data sources contradict each other in a manner that is significant for lexicostatistical processing. Since there is no way to determine the accuracy of the semantics, we have to include both forms as synonyms.

Werner 2002: II, 17. A highly irregular verb, cf. the paradigm: 1sg nˈi=ma 'I say' (< *di=ma with assimilation), 2sg kˈu=ma 'you say', but 3sg m. bˈa-da ~ bˈa-rä ~ bˈa-rʸa 'he says', 3sg f. mˈa-nä ~ mˈa-nʸa 'she says' (the subject markers are prefixed in the 1st and 2nd persons, but suffixed in the 3rd person). This verb is generally used in complex sentences to introduce indirect speech ("I say that...", etc.).

Werner 2011: 251. Cf. the paradigm: 1sg nˈi=ma 'I say' (< *di=ma with assimilation), 2sg kˈu=ma 'you say', 3sg m. nˈu=ma 'he says' (< *du=ma with assimilation), 3sg f. nˈa=ma 'she says' (< *da=ma). Like in Ket, this verb is generally used in complex sentences to introduce indirect speech ("I say that...", etc.).

Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=čagar-aŋ, imperative: a=l=čagar. The infinitive form čagar is glossed in the substantive meaning 'speech' [Castrén 1858: 215].

Not attested properly. Cf. the form qedˈɨlči (M., Dict., Kl.), glossed as 'speak' in [Dulzon 1961: 162]; there is no evidence for it being the default verb for 'to say' in Arin, nor is it even clear how it is to be morphologically segmented.

Not attested properly. Cf. the form kalˈu (Dict.), glossed as 'speak' in [Dulzon 1961: 162]; there is no evidence for it being the default verb for 'to say' in Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 269. Distribution: Preserved in all the languages where it is attested, but the original semantics raises doubts (see further notes). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular, although the nature of -r- in Kott =čagar- is problematic: it is not identifiable as a suffix, yet it can hardly be part of the original root, since there are no traces of such a resonant in either Ket or Yugh. Semantics and structure: It is possible that the actual meaning of Proto-Yeniseian *saga- was closer to 'speak, talk' than to 'say', considering that in Ket-Yugh at least, the highly irregular verb *=ma 'to say' looks more archaic than *saga-; formally, however, it is difficult to project *=ma onto the Proto-Yeniseian level due to its conspicuous absence from Castrén's records of Kott material.

Werner 2002: II, 157; Werner 1993: 84. A composite verb, consisting of the "kernel" verbal stem -bet 'to do' and the "modifier" saɣ- conveying the main meaning 'say'. Quoted as sag-a-betʸ in [Castrén 1858: 185] (actually a Yugh form).

Werner 2011: 251. See notes on Ket.

0

Werner 2002: II, 228; Werner 1993: 101. (Quoted as {төн} in the latter source, clearly a misprint for {төӈ}). Verbal root -uŋ used only in conjunction with the preverb t=. Cf. particular forms: dˈiˑ=t=oŋ 'I see', past tense t=t=ˈɔ=lʸ=oŋ, d=bˈa=t=oŋ 'he sees me', past tense d=bˈa=t=ɔ=lʸ=oŋ, etc.

    The preverb-only complex verb ŋ=...ʁɔ ([Werner 2002: II, 29]; 1st p. sg. d=bˈa=ŋ=s=ɔ=ʁɔ, etc.) is also frequently translated as 'to see'. Superficial analysis of existing Ket texts, however, shows that this verb's primary meaning is that of intentional activity, i.e. 'to look', as opposed to t=...=uŋ 'see'; it is therefore ineligible for inclusion in the wordlist. Same goes for the preverbial verb k=...=dɔ ([Werner 2002: I, 194]; dˈi=ɣ=a=rʸo 'I look at him', etc.), whose main difference from ŋ=...ʁɔ is that it is generally used with animate objects ('to look at someone'), whereas ŋ=...ʁɔ is generally used in the meaning 'to look at smth.'.

Werner 2011: 277. Infinitive form, clearly segmentable into the preverb t= and the root =oŋ, cf. particular forms: diˑ=t=oŋ 'I see', past tense di=t=ˈɔ=r=ɔŋ, d=bˈa=t=oŋ 'he sees me', past tense d=bˈa=t=ɔ=r=ɔŋ, etc. Preverbial verbs k=... =dʸou and ŋ=... =ɔ ~ ŋ= ... =χɔ [Werner 2011: 277-278], as in Ket, both mean 'to look' rather than 'to see'.

Castrén 1858: 218. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: tʰ=o=l=oːŋ-aŋ, imperative: tʰ=aː=l=aŋ. As in Ket, the complex stem consists of the preverbal formative tʰ= and the root morpheme =aːŋ- ~ =oːŋ-.

Dulzon 1961: 160 (M., Kl.). Quoted as pongˈaulʸoŋ in (Dict.), with no specification as to the exact nature of the form. In (Kh.), the segmentally similar form peneulʸu is glossed as 'I see' [Werner 2002: II, 53]. If -lʸ- can be analyzed as the past tense marker, then we are dealing with a composite verb, where the first root is *pen- (?) and the second is a monovocalic *o / *u (?). Quite obscure.

Dulzon 1961: 160 (Dict.). The complete citation is buŋ ya=xal-di, which probably means "I see them"; -di is the 1st p. sg. suffix and ya= is segmentable as an auxiliary morpheme complex (cf. ya=iči-du (Dict.) 'I laugh' [Dulzon 1961: 182]). The root morpheme seems to be =xal-.

S. Starostin 1995: 290 (*t-uŋ). Distribution: Preserved in Ket-Yugh and Kott, but apparently lost in Arin and Pumpokol (at least, as the default equivalent for 'to see'). Replacements: Both the Arin and Pumpokol forms are difficult to segment, and neither of the two has a decent etymology (S. Starostin's attempt to compare the Pumpokol form with Ket d-ba-ŋ-sɔ-ʁɔ 'I see', actually 'I look', in [YED # 1057], is based on a probably incorrect segmentation of the Pumpokol form and has to be rejected). Reconstruction shape: Correspondences between Ket-Yugh and Kott are regular; labial vocalism in Ket-Yugh corresponding to a in Kott generally reflects Proto-Yeniseian *ɔ. Semantics and structure: Ket-Yugh and Kott agree on the basic structure of the verb, consisting of the directional prefix *t= and the root *=ɔŋ, separated by grammatical morphemes such as the tense and conjugation markers.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Werner 2002: I, 167. Attested only in (Kh.). The first component is most likely čʸuyu 'grass', just as in čʸui=n=boson 'straw' [ibid.]. Since it is somewhat dubious that the word for 'seed' should contain a root with the meaning 'grass', the whole entry is quite suspicious.

Not attested.

Not reconstructible due to lack of data.

Werner 2002: II, 187; Werner 1993: 86. Composite verb; the "kernel" -ta is a very frequent formative part of (usually) static action verbs. Cf. specific forms: t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ta ~ t=sʸˈɛsʸ-tɛ 'he sits', past tense t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ɔ-lʸ-ta ~ t=sʸˈɛsʸ-ɔ-lʸ-tɛ, etc. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb k=...=ɣɜːnʸ 'to sit down' [Werner 2002: I, 402], formed with the preverb k= (t=k=ˈa=ddi=ɣɜːnʸ 'I sit down', etc.). Quoted as sesta, past tense sesogalta in [Castrén 1858: 186].

Werner 2011: 282. Composite verb, as in Ket. Cf. specific forms: 1sg di=sˈɛs-tɛ 'I sit', past tense di=sˈɛs-ɔʰː-r-tɛ, etc. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb kaʰːp ~ kˈaf-ɨŋ 'to sit down' [Werner 2011: 279].

Castrén 1858: 220. Polysemy: 'to sit / to live'. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=uy-aŋ, imperative: a=lʸ=ek (with suppletivism). Cf. also uŋ 'sitting, living' (glossed in [Castrén 1858: 203] as a participial form). Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb iː=g=pan-aŋ 'to sit down' [Castrén 1858: 200]. Cf. in older sources: yau 'I sit / I live' (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 366] (actually, this seems to be the 3rd p. form rather than the 1st p.).

Werner 2002: I, 221. Attested only in (Kh.). To be segmented, probably, as a= (conjugation marker) + =ku- (root) + -m (a variant of 1st p. sg. marker -ŋ). The strange distinction between akum 'I sit' and akume 'I live', marked in the source, may be fictitious.

Dulzon 1961: 182 (Dict.). Glossed as 'I am sitting' (actually, more likely to be 'he is sitting', in the light of the personal ending -du). Structurally, the verb looks like a composite formation, with tɨt- as the main lexical root.

S. Starostin 1995: 297. Distribution: Preserved in Kott-Arin, but probably replaced in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol. Replacements: Other than Kott-Arin, the old root *xu- is also preserved in the Ket-Yugh infinitive form u-ŋ 'to sit' [Werner 2002: II, 380] (< *xu-/V/ŋ; Werner doubts that -ŋ is segmentable as a suffix, but this component is quite often met in various infinitives); this makes it the optimal candidate for the basic Proto-Yeniseian 'to sit', but also raises the issue of the replacement of the original paradigm in Ket-Yugh and Pumpokol with *ses- [S. Starostin 1995: 279]. Reconstruction shape: Root-initial x- is reconstructed on the basis of the Arin form (a=ku-m, etc.).

Werner 2002: I, 393. Neuter gender. Plural form: iʔŋ. Polysemy: 'skin (human) / hide, pelt'. The plural form iʔŋ ~ iˑŋ may itself be used in the singulative meaning 'skin' as well [Werner 2002: I, 395]. Quoted as iː, pl. i-eŋ in [Castrén 1858: 161].

Werner 2011: 167. Neuter gender. Plural form: iŋgɔl-ɨŋ. Quoted as iyɔl₅ ~ igɔl₅, pl. iŋgɔl-ɨŋ₅ in [Werner 1977: 151].

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not attested.

Not reconstructible due to lack of data. The Ket-Yugh word is comparable with Kott eːk 'hair' (see notes on 'hair'), meaning that the original meaning of the etymon was probably closer to 'body hair; animal hair, fur' than to 'skin'.

Werner 2002: II, 360-361; Werner 1993: 94. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. See notes on 'to lie' for paradigm details. Should be distinguished from the dynamic action verb usʸenʸ 'to go to sleep' [Werner 2002: II, 360], occasionally translated as simply 'sleep' in some sources as well (e. g. [Werner 1993: 113]), but in a somewhat inaccurate manner.

Werner 2011: 259. Polysemy: 'to lie / to sleep'. See notes on 'to lie' for paradigm details. As in Ket, should be distinguished from the dynamic action verb usan 'to go to sleep' [Werner 2011: 259].

Castrén 1858: 220. Same word as 'to lie' q.v. The entry is dubious, since Castrén only gives the meaning 'to lie'; however, the past form a=l=a=tan is so frequently glossed in older sources with the meaning 'I sleep' that this seriously looks like a flaw in Castrén's semantic notation. In the German-Yeniseian semantic index, he renders the meaning 'to sleep' (schlafen) as Kott čagal-aː-k-ŋ (p. 252), but on. p. 215 čagal-aː-k-ŋ is only translated as 'to drowse' (schlummern). External cognates in Ket also indirectly support the idea that dʸ=aːt-aŋ may have been the basic equivalent for both 'lie' and 'sleep', whereas čagal expressed a more specific meaning. Cf. the actual form in the older sources: a=l=ˈa=ten 'sleep' (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 371].

Dulzon 1961: 183 (M., Dict., Kl.). Glossed as 'I sleep'; segmentable as a= (conjugation marker) + =qod- (root) + -oŋ (1st p. sg. marker); in (Kh.), attested as a=xot without the personal ending [Werner 2002: II, 361]. There is also a suppletive - possibly infinitive - stem: kus (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.) [Dulzon 1961: 183], also attested in the composite verb kus-paya (Kh.) 'I am drowsing' [Werner 2002: II, 359].

Dulzon 1961: 183 (Dict.). Cf. the suppletive - infinitive? - stem: utˈu 'to sleep' (Dict., Pal., Kl.), and the synonymous xotɨk 'to sleep' (Pal., Kl.) [ibid.]. The latter form of the two might actually be Yugh rather than proper Pumpokol.

See notes on 'to lie'; in Proto-Yeniseian, the meanings 'lie' and 'sleep' were most likely expressed by the same root.

Werner 2002: I, 337; Werner 1993: 123. Secondary synonym: ˈim-da 'small / fine / thin' [Werner 2002: I, 362]; this word has more limited distribution (applied to thin slices of meat, fine sand, etc.). Quoted as hɜna₆ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as hɜne ~ hɜnɛ in [Castrén 1858: 174].

Werner 2011: 194. Quoted as fǝnʸnʸa₆ in [Werner 1977: 192]; as fɜnʸɛ in [Castrén 1858: 191].

Castrén 1858: 205. Completely different form listed in older sources: imɨraŋˈaga (M., Dict., Kl.), imiraŋaga (Pal.) [Verner 1990: 330].

Dulzon 1961: 172 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as kalhona in (Pal.).

Dulzon 1961: 172 (Dict., Pal., Kl.). A predicative form (the suffix -du is a personal ending, i. e. = 'he is small'); the root is obviously the same as in xilˈuŋ-la 'child' (Dict., Pal.). The quasi-synonymous form fɨnem (Pal., Kl.) is most probably Yugh rather than proper Pumpokol.

S. Starostin 1995: 248 (*pǝn-). Alternately reconstructed as *pʰǝnʸa in [Werner 2002: I, 337]. Distribution: Preserved only in Ket-Yugh. Replacements: (a) Although Arin kalqˈona and Pumpokol xilʸuŋ- 'small' seem to share the same root, the actual words are derived from words for 'child' (< Proto-Yeniseian *ʒVl 'child' [S. Starostin 1995: 308]) according to different models of derivation; therefore, it is difficult to regard this situation as either a shared innovation or a common archaism on the part of these two languages - the semantic derivation {'child' > 'small'} seems a more likely solution; (b) Kott kišlaː has no etymological connections whatsoever, not to mention a somewhat strange phonetic shape for a native Yeniseian word. Thus, only Ket-Yugh *pǝɲ- remains as a potential candidate for the original Proto-Yeniseian 'small'.

Werner 2002: I, 210; Werner 1993: 38. Neuter gender. Plural form: dˈu-nʸaŋ {дунеӈ}. Quoted as duʔ₂, pl. duˑ-nʸeŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 146]; as duʔo in [Castrén 1858: 184].

Werner 2011: 242. Neuter gender. Plural form: du-nɨŋ. Quoted as duʔ₂, pl. du-nɨŋ₁ in [Werner 1977: 146].

Castrén 1858: 217. Plural form: tu-an. Cf. in older sources: tug (M., Dict., Kl.) [Verner 1990: 308].

Dulzon 1961: 166 (M., Dict., Kl.).

Dulzon 1961: 166 (Dict.).

S. Starostin 1995: 224 (*duʔ/χ/-). Alternately reconstructed as *duʔ ~ *duka in [Werner 2002: I, 210]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are generally regular; the only problem is with reconstructing the root-final segment - an issue unresolved in both S. Starostin's and Werner's reconstructions. Overall, the evidence for a final back consonant is weak and inconclusive. The Pumpokol form is clearly composite, with unclear segmentation (could be du-kar, which would then be comparable to Ket du-ɣɔt 'bonfire with smoke'). The transcription tug in some old sources on Kott could technically transcribe *tuʔ. Conversely, if there was a velar or uvular phoneme at the end of the root, we would have expected it to be preserved in at least some of the well-attested languages / dialects, but this does not seem to be the case. For now, it is preferable to think of *duʔ as the original structure.

Werner 2002: I, 393; Werner 1993: 47. Cf. specific forms: dˈi=kk=enʸ ~ diˑ=nʸ 'I stand', past tense d=ɔ=lʸ=iˑnʸ; kˈu=kk=enʸ ~ kuˑ=nʸ 'you stand' (sg.), past tense k=ɔ=lʸ=iˑnʸ, etc. Quoted as iˑn₁ in [Werner 1977: 151]; as diː=ʔin, past tense du=o=lʸ=iːn in [Castrén 1858: 182].

Werner 2011: 289. Cf. specific forms: diˑ=fɨn 'I stand', past tense d=ɔʰː=r=fin; kuˑ=fɨn 'you stand' (sg.), past tense k=ɔʰː=r=fin, etc. Quoted as ifɨn₆ in [Werner 1977: 151]; as dɨ=fen, past tense d=oː=r=fen in [Castrén 1858: 183].

Castrén 1858: 220. 1st p. sg. Cf. past tense: a=l=a=tek-ŋ, imperative: a=l=tek. Quite distinct from the dynamic action verb f=a=ta-g-aːk-ŋ, past tense f=a=l=tay-aŋ, imperative f=a=l=ta [Castrén 1858: 225] (with suppletive structure of the paradigm: past tense and imperative reflect the preverb f= joined with the simple root =ta(y)-, whereas the present tense adds yet another auxiliary verbal stem, =aːk-). Cf. in older sources: ay yatˈɨk ~ yätɨk 'I am standing', etc. [Verner 1990: 273].

Dulzon 1961: 184. For this verb, several paradigmatic forms are attested in known sources: 1st p. sg. ai ˈä=tʸaŋ (M., Dict.), a=tʸaŋ (Kl.); 2nd p. sg. au ˈa=xun-ku (M., Dict.; the same form is also listed as the 3rd p. sg., but this is probably a mistake); 1st p. pl. aiŋ ä=tʸaŋ-taŋ (M., Dict.), 2nd p. pl. a=xoren-tʸaːŋ (M., Dict.), 3rd p. pl. itaŋ ä=tʸaŋ-taŋ (M., Dict.). Although some of the forms may be inaccurate, it still looks as if the paradigm was suppletive, with the root *=tʸaŋ encountered in the 1st p., the root *=xun- ~ *=xod- encountered in the 2nd p., and both encountered in the 3rd p.

Dulzon 1961: 184 (Dict.). For this verb, several paradigmatic forms are attested in known sources: 1st p. sg. ičˈa-diŋ-dˈi, 2nd p. sg. ˈue ičˈa-diŋ-du, 3rd p. sg. ˈadu ičˈa-diŋ-du, 1st p. pl. ˈadɨŋ ičˈa-diŋ-du-n, 2nd p. pl. ayˈaŋ ičˈa-diŋ-an. The structure of the stem ičadiŋ- remains unclear: it either contains two roots (/i/č/a/- and diŋ-), or the first several phonemes all constitute grammatical morphemes (e. g. a complex of conjugational markers and adverbial prefixes).

S. Starostin 1995: 221 (*d/ɨ/k-). Distribution: Preserved everywhere except for Ket-Yugh. Replacements: The basic equivalent for 'stand' in Ket-Yugh (*ʔipɨn) finds no parallels in Kott, Arin, and Pumpokol, and so, technically, counts as a replacement, although from an unknown source. Reconstruction shape: The main problem is with the second consonant, attested as a velar nasal in Arin (=taŋ) and in Pumpokol (=diŋ), but as a velar stop in Kott (=tek-). One possible solution is that the original root shape was *=dɨkŋ, with different paths of cluster simplification followed in Arin, Pumpokol, and Kott; another is that nasalization or denasalization of the second root consonant was an irregular development in one or more of these languages, perhaps triggered by a sandhi process in some of the forms and then generalized throughout the paradigm. Since there seems to be no way to establish an optimal scenario, all three variants may be taken into consideration when submitting the root for further external comparison. Semantics and structure: One should also pay attention to the rather weird suppletivism (=tʸaŋ / =xun) in the Arin paradigm, which may be archaic, although the formation mechanism for such a paradigm remains completely unclear.

Werner 2002: II, 122; Werner 1993: 66. Neuter gender. Plural form: qɔːn {қоон}. Quoted as qɔʔ₂ / qɔʁ₄ (S.-Imb.), pl. qɔːn₃ in [Werner 1977: 162]; as qoaɢ, pl. qoaɢ-aŋ in [Castrén 1858: 170].

Werner 2011: 291. Neuter gender. Plural form: χɔχ-ɨn. Quoted as χɔʰːχ₄, pl. χɔχ-ɨn₅ in [Werner 1977: 162]; as xoax, pl. xoax-an ~ xoaɢ-an in [Castrén 1858: 172].

Castrén 1858: 196. Plural form: alag-an ~ alak-ŋ. The word-initial sequence al= is segmented out as a fossilized prefix, due to external comparison and complete analogy with such cases as 'dog', 'bird' q.v., etc. Cf. in older sources: alagˈa-n (M., Dict., Pal., Kl.), alaka-n (Kh.) [Verner 1990: 314] (plural forms).

Dulzon 1961: 167 (M., Dict., Kl.). Quoted as ilʸ=koy in (Pal.); as il=xok in (Kh.) [Werner 2002: II, 122]. Initial il= is the same fossilized prefix as in 'dog' q.v.

Dulzon 1961: 167 (Dict., Pal.). The form is clearly plural ('stars').

S. Starostin 1995: 265. Alternately reconstructed as *qoʔǝɢǝ in [Werner 2002: II, 122]. Distribution: Preserved in all daughter languages. Reconstruction shape: Correspondences are regular. In Kott and Arin, the word shows fusion with the same obscure prefix as in the word for 'dog' q.v. (*al=qɔːqa ~ *il=qɔːqa).

Werner 2002: II, 312; Werner 1993: 106. Neuter gender. Plural form: tɜʔ-ŋ ~ tˈɜ-ŋaːnʸ {тъʼӈ}. Quoted as tɨʔsʸ₂, pl. tɜʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tɨɜs, pl. tɜaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 177].

Werner 2011: 290. Neuter gender. Plural form: čɜʔ-ŋ ~ *čɜ-ŋ-aːn. Quoted as čɨʔs₂, pl. čɜʔŋ₂ in [Werner 1977: 185]; as tʸɨɜs, pl. tʸɜaŋ in [Castrén 1858: 178].