Lexico-statistical studies in Khoisan II/I: how to make a Swadesh wordlist for Proto-Tuu

Notes on transcription

The transcriptional system used in this paper generally follows the transcriptional standard which is currently employed in the Global Lexicostatistical Database and is itself essentially based on IPA, but with a few important modifications.

Clicks: following the system adopted in Vossen 1997, nasalized clicks are transcribed with a superscript tilde sign (0, J, etc.) while voiced clicks have a subscript tilde (0, /, etc.).

Affricates: instead of IPA's digraphic combinations, single letters are used to denote alveolar (c, j) and palatal (ç, 3) affricates.

For morphological segmentation, the hyphen sign is used to separate root morphemes from suffixes (ku-ka, etc.), while the equation sign is used to separate roots from prefixal components (e.g. l'Auni si=lu `bird', etc.).

For a more detailed description of the transcription system, including notes on transliteration of data from old sources, see Starostin 2015.

Appendix. Comparative analysis of Tuu basic lexicon (Items 1-50)

In this Appendix, I list the results of intermediate and Proto-Tuu reconstructions for the first (alphabetically) 50 items on the Swadesh wordlist (more or less closely following the semantic specifications set out in Kassian et al. 2010). Each entry is structured as follows:

(1) Name of the item, together with a formal notation of the presence / absence of lexico- statistical parallels between the three branches: e.g. [!Ui + Taa] [- Nossob] means that the reconstructions for Proto-!Ui and Proto-Taa are cognate, whereas the reconstruction for Proto- Nossob is not (this also includes pseudo-reconstructions). Sometimes, even when all three branches reflect the same root, two out of three may be more tightly connected, for instance, sharing common morphological formations (suffixes, etc.). Such extra proximity is indicated with additional parentheses, e.g. [!Ui + [Nossob + Taa]]: it offers additional evidence for phylogenetic classification. If there are no matches whatsoever between any of the three branches, the word is marked with [-].

(2-4) Reconstructions for Proto-!Ui, Proto-Nossob, and Proto-Taa, accompanied with a list of most of the attested reflexes. If the onomasiological reconstruction is equivocal, two or more roots may be listed instead as (a), (b), etc. The 0 sign separates listed data from comments on the reconstructions These comments are sometimes identical with notes on specific items and reconstructions which have already been published as part of the !Ui and Taa databases at the Global Lexicostatistical Database (Starostin 20112021). However, the present paper also adds new details and observations that are relevant for reconstruction purposes, while at the same time omitting a large amount of synchronic information on the actual South Khoisan forms which may be found in the database notes.. Note that the Appendix does not necessarily list all the attested forms corresponding to the Swadesh items in question, but mainly those that justify the reconstruction. For complete lexicostatistical lists, the reader is advised to refer to the South Khoisan (!Ui and Taa) databases that are separately available online at the Global Lexicostatistical Database (Starostin 2011-2021).

(5) Proto-Tuu reconstruction (where it is at all possible). For reasons described above (in the “Notes on phonetic reconstruction” section), we do not systematically list Tuu protoforms, but rather use the notation “Tuu+” to indicate credible lexicostatistical isoglosses between !Ui and/or Nossob and Taa which almost certainly go back to a common Tuu protoform, and the notation “Tuu-” to indicate the lack of such isoglosses. Note that “Tuu-” also marks situations where one of the branches may have an etymological cognate in the other, but since the meanings are different, this does not qualify as a proper lexicostatistical match (e.g. big, etc.).

1. ALL [!Ui + Taa] [-Nossob]

!Ui: *ku (|Xam ku:, ||Ng!ke kwa:, Seroa ku). 0 Attestation in ||Ng!ke is somewhat dubious (the word is only found in the earlier source Bleek 1929, not in Bleek 1956), but the |Xam entry is hardly questionable. Isolated equivalents (a) in N|uu: huni-ki (= (Kho-M huni-çe); (b) in ||Xegwi-LH: ç'i ~ ç'ï (only found as part of composite pronominal stems i- ç'i `we all', u-ç'i ~ u-ç'ï `you all').

Nossob: |'Auni bà (?). 0 Cf. the example in Bleek 1956: 13: tuku bà su l'bbati “men shall all return”. Not clear if this semantic glossing should be trusted, especially given that the word Hani is also occasionally glossed as `all', e.g. ku totos Hani “all the people” (on the other hand, the primary meaning of Hani is probably `many', cf. below).

Taa: *kU-kar (!Xoô kô: kà?a, Kakia ku-ka:f ~ ku-ka). 0 Clearly a compound, but it is hard to delineate the individual meaning and function of each component. For N|u||en, the

only attested equivalent is lârri, the same word as `many' q.v.; it is impossible to tell if both meanings truly merged in the same word or if this is just a case of inaccurate semantic glossing.

* Tuu+: A clear isogloss between at least |Xam (+ Seroa) and Taa, allowing to reconstruct *ku as a basic Tuu morpheme for `all'. Specific evolution of this meaning in various daughter languages and its correlation with the related meaning `many' may be obscured by inadequate glossing and insufficient contextual data.

ASHES [!Ui + Taa] [-Nossob]

!Ui: *!qui (|Xam !ùi ~ !ui, jKho-D Iwi, N|uu !qui). ? Not attested in ||Xegwi or any of the minor sources. Perhaps phonetically identical with |Xam !ku:i `to burn, smart, pain' (Bleek 1956: 449), but without data from other sources it is premature to suggest semantic derivation (may simply be a case of homophony or close phonetic similarity).

Nossob: |'Auni !'hana. ? Phonetically similar to !Xoô Hq'âpa `dirt, rubbish, rust', but the click influx correspondence would be unprecedented (unless the |'Auni form is inaccurate).

Taa: (a) !Xoö fda, Kakia Hwa:; (b) N|u||en !'wi. ? Technically, the form in !Xoö is more reliable than item (b), and its distribution is confirmed by the parallel in Kakia (with a mistranscribed lateral click, cf. `bone', etc., below). However, the word is also phonetically identical with the widely distributed Proto-Kalahari Khoe root *foa `ashes' (Vossen 1997: 417), and the lack of etymological parallels in !Ui strongly suggests that we are simply dealing with one of !Xoö's many borrowings from the neighboring |Gui. In this light, the form attested by D. Bleek in N|u||en looks more trustworthy as a potential archaism.

Tuu+: The isogloss between !Ui and N|u||en (West Taa) strongly suggests Proto-Tuu *!qui `ashes', replaced in !Xoö by a borrowing and not found in the Nossob sugroup.

BARK [-]

!Ui: Not reconstructible. ? The word is attested consistently only within the N|uu cluster, where all forms are identifiable as borrowed from Kalahari Khoe (cf. PKK *Öõ'é `bark' in Vossen 1997: 421): fKho-D Öõ'Ù, N|uu lx'ü:-si. The only other known form is ||Ng!ke lo:, somewhat dubious because it is not backed by any textual examples.

Nossob: |'Auni Öî:. ? This could actually be the same word as fKho-D Öõ'ù, etc., i.e. also a borrowing from Kalahari Khoe, although Bleek's transcription of the click efflux (zero instead of expected -x'-) would seem to contradict this.

Taa: (a) !Xoö gu-le (pl. gu-n), Kakia gu-le; (b) N|u||en lum. ? The!Xoö form has obvious parallels in the |Gui-||Gana cluster of Kalahari Khoe (gure `bark' in Tanaka 1978: 10), but in this case, the word seems to be exclusive for that particular cluster rather than reconstructible for PKK, implying possible borrowing from Taa rather than vice versa.

Tuu-: No proper isoglosses between the three clusters, and the word itself is formally not reconstructible. Its frequent re-borrowing from Kalahari Khoe indicates that the concept itself is not very stable in Tuu languages.

BELLY [-]

!Ui: (a) |Xam !âu-tu; (b) ||Ng!ke Öõ'à:, N|uu Öõ'à. ? In most languages, available data do not allow to perfectly distinguish between the meanings `belly' and `stomach', although at least W. Bleek's notes on |Xam suggest that !âu-tu `belly' may have been opposed to joaf `stomach'.

Nossob: |'Auni tf'ai.

Taa: (a) !Xoö !hüma; (b) N|u||en fla:ban.

Tuu-: Not properly reconstructible. 0 `Belly' / `abdomen' as a concept referring to the external part of the body seems to be fairly unstable in Tuu, with each individual language essentially having its own equivalent (this assuming that the semantic interpretation in older, uncheckable sources actually holds water). `Internal belly' = `stomach, bowels' is actually more stable: Proto-Tuu *|oa- can be reliably reconstructed based on the correlation between |Xam joa? `stomach' and !Xoö jöäh `innards, bowels, stomach' (cf. also, perhaps, ||Xegwi-Z jhu-ga: `stomach', ||Xegwi-B ju-bwa id., although the second syllable in each of these forms remains unexplained).

5. BIG [!Ui + Taa] [-Nossob]

!Ui: (a) |Xam !ui-ya; (b) N|uu !xo:; (c) ||Xegwi-Z Hxeya ~ Hx'eya, ||Xegwi-LH Öõ'â:. 0 Not properly reconstructible. The adjectival meaning `big' in general is unstable and its equivalents seem to be easily reinvented from various verbal stems, e.g. |Xam !ui-ya is most likely derived from !ui `to grow'. N|uu !xo: is clearly the same as |Xam !xo: `upright, tall', but this does not guarantee that `big' was the original semantics.

Nossob: *o-si ~ *u-si (|'Auni us ~ u:si ~ u:si, |Haasi 3-si). 0 For |Haasi, Story also records usage of !xwa: `big' as a free synonym; this may actually be a borrowing from N|uu.

Taa: *!xa-(i): !Xoö !xa-, Kakia !xai, N|u||en !xai.

Tuu-: Since !Ui *o : Taa *a is a recurrent correspondence (possibly indicative of a special Proto-Tuu phoneme such as Ú), it is formally admissible to postulate Proto-Tuu *!xo- `big' on the basis of the isogloss between Proto-Taa *!xa- and N|uu !xo: (+ |Xam !xo: `tall'?). This is, however, not a perfect onomasiological match in light of the overall instability of the concept and uncertainties about specific semantic glossing in separate languages.

6. BIRD [!Ui + [Nossob + Taa]]

!Ui: *|qhui (||Ng!ke jwi ~ jwi:, jKho-M jwi-si, N|uu jqhui-si, ||Xegwi-Z jhwi). 0 Reconstruction based upon the presumably accurate efflux transcription in N|uu. The original root seems to have been narrowed down to the meaning `vulture' in |Xam (jwi:), whereas two innovative forms are attested for `bird': (a) x'arri ~ x'anni, usually glossed as `little bird'; this is clearly related to Proto-Khoekhoe *h'ani `bird' (ironically, itself ^ Proto-Khoe *fa'ani `vulture', see Vossen 1997: 441) and likely reflects a recent borrowing; (b) flerri-tdn- `large bird', transparently derived from flérri(ya) `feather' and thus also clearly innovative.

Nossob: *si=|u (|'Auni si=ju, |Haasi si=l3:). 0 Reconstruction of voiced efflux and *-u is provisional (largely based on external data). Initial si= is a nominal prefix commonly observed in other words as well (nothing to do with the copula si; possibly the same singulative marker as in N|uu jqhui-si, etc., only prefixed rather than suffixed?). Note that Bleek also lists |'Auni lo: as a free synonym; this may be a prefix-less variant of the same stem, perhaps from a different dialect since in this shape, the word is actually phonetically closer to the variant in |Haasi.

Taa: *|u(s)- (!Xoô luh?u, pl. lûh?à-tè, Kakia si=flu, N|u||en si=jou). 0 Kakia si=flu is probably a typo for *si=lu. It is notable that Kakia and N|u||en both share the prefix si- with Nossob forms; !Xoö, however, shows no traces of it.

* Tuu+: Nossob and Taa forms are pretty much identical. The question of how they tie together with !Ui *|qhui is more problematic, but etymological identity is possible assuming that (a) *-i is a fossilized class marker and (b) the aspirated uvular efflux in N|uu is somehow correlated with strident vowel articulation in Taa (in any case, there are additional examples where uvular efflux articulation in !Ui correlates to a lack thereof in Taa, cf. `horn', etc.). We may tentatively reconstruct Proto-Taa *|us- or even *|q(h)us- to account for this alignment.

BITE [[!Ui + Nossob] + Taa]

!Ui: *c'i (|Xam c':i: ~ c:î:, ||Ng!ke ci ~ c'î, fKho-M, fKho-D c'i:, N|uu c'i:, ||Xegwi-Z ci,

||Xegwi-LH c'i:).

Nossob: |Haasi c'i:. 0 In |'Auni, the form c'i: is only attested by Bleek in the meaning `to ache', but given that the polysemy `bite / ache' is also attested in fKho, it is possible that this was the proper equivalent in |'Auni as well.

Taa: *si?- (!Xoô si?i, N|u||en ce-ya). 0 The N|u||en form is the same as the !Xoö variable stem si?-JV. Not attested in Kakia.

Tuu+: *si?i may be reliably reconstructed as the original root. !Ui and Nossob forms seem to share the phonetic shift *si?i ^ *s?i ^ *c'i, in which the intervocalic glottal stop fused with the word-initial sibilant and turned it into a glottalized affricate. In some of the varieties of Taa and Nossob, the same root also serves as the derivational basis for `snake' (see below).

BLACK [-]

!Ui: *!(h)oe (|Xam !we:n ~ !wèy, ||Ng!ke !we ~ !oe, N|uu !hoe, ||Xegwi-Z cwa ~ ncwa,

| Xegwi-LH jwa: ~ jwa:). 0 The forms in |Xam and the N|uu cluster are clearly related (nasal coda in |Xam is likely of suffixal origin). Relation of these forms to ||Xegwi (n)cwa or jwa: is less certain, but a probable scenario is [1] regular deletion of initial *!- (*!oe ^ *koe) with [2] subsequent palatalization before a front vowel (^ *coe) and [3] lowering of the diphthong (^ *cwa). For [1], see tail, two, water below; for [3], cf. `one'; no clear examples of [2], but no contradictory cases either. For now, we may count all these forms as cognates.

Nossob: |Haasi //e. 0 Not attested in |'Auni.

Taa: *\al- (!Xoô fà?-pa, N|u||en fa-na). 0 Same root in !Xoö fa-be `black person'; -pa is a common adjectival suffix also encountered in other color terms (see red, white below).

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. All three branches have their own equivalents.

9. BLOOD [!Ui + Nossob] [-Taa]

!Ui: *||xau (|Xam /xau-ka ~ /xau-kdn ~ /xau-ki, ||Ng!ke /xau, N|uu /xau-ke). 0 Solid recon

struction. Probably not related to ||Xegwi-LH K'ëü, which should reflect something like *f'äü, without any clear external parallels (phonetic similarity to Proto-Khoe *fao `heart' is likely accidental, since click effluxes do not match and semantic connections between `blood' and `heart' are not particularly common in the Khoisan area).

Nossob: *||xau (|'Auni //xau(?)u, |Haasi /xau).

Taa: *Tar (!Xoô ïà:f ~ ïâfm, Kakia /a:fa, N|u|en Za:fa). 0 Provenance of -m in ïâfm is unclear; perhaps the result of morphological reanalysis of the plural form ïâ^-ma-tê.

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 An obvious isogloss between !Ui and Nossob, on one hand, and Taa, on the other. It is curious that in both of D. Bleek's dictionaries, she records a !Ui-like form for `blood' for Kakia: Öõàé (1929), Öõ೿ (1956). However, it is not confirmed by textual examples, not distinguished semantically from Ja:?a, and is clearly not the principal word for `blood' in Taa as a whole. It may be a borrowing from some variety of !Ui (which is hard to confirm without a systemic analysis of the entire corpus) or, if it is some sort of archaic retention in limited (bound?) contexts, it could be a valuable indication that Common Taa *ïa? is innovative.

BONE [!Ui + Taa]

!Ui: *ç(0)a (|Xam !wa, ||Xegwi-LH !a). ? Correspondences between |Xam and ||Xegwi are non-trivial, but regular, reflecting the “sixth click” and extra labialisation in |Xam. A different equivalent for `bone' is seen in the N|uu cluster: ||Ng!ke Habba, N|uu Haba, evidently cognate with |Xam Habba `a piece of eland's bone that forms part of the completed arrow'. It must be noted, however, that Bleek transcribes the plural form for ||Ng!ke Habba as HaHa (reduplication is typically indicative of plurality), and that similar forms are also found in N|uu compound plurals, e.g. fqha: Hai-ke `chest bones'. This may indicate suppletivism and preservation of the original equivalent for `bone' in the collective / plural forms. Since the expected reflex of *£(0)a in N|uu would indeed be Ha, such a solution is quite likely; it must be noted, however, that Ha and Habba, despite phonetic similarity, can hardly represent the same root due to having different clicks in |Xam.

Nossob: Not attested in either |'Auni or |Haasi.

Taa: (!Xoö fa: /poss./, fa: /alien./, Kakia Ha:, N|u||en fa). ? Lateral click in Kakia is

probably mistranscribed, as in many other similar cases.

Tuu+: !Ui *çna and Taa *fa represent a solid etymological and lexicostatistical match; the only discrepancy is nasalization in Taa, which may ultimately go back to a suffixal extension (*fa-q).

BREAST (CHEST) [!Ui + Taa] [-Nossob]

!Ui: (?) *|uiq (|Xam f\wain-tu; ||Ng!ke fjwoeq ~ fjwoin-tu; N|uu Öé¿-çu, ||Ku||e /oin-tu). ? This word is clearly distinct from the word for `female breast / milk' (|Xam !hwai, N|uu /fOI, etc.), and its semantic properties in individual languages are not always clearly distinguishable from those of close synonyms, e.g. |Xam Haxu `chest' (possibly the same as Haxu ~ Haxu `side') or N|uu fqha: `sternum', `breastbone'. The latter directly corresponds to ||Xegwi-Z/LH sa-gu `chest' (see the exact same phonetic correspondence in `wind' below), which makes the ||Xegwi form a less probable candidate for Proto-!Ui status (i.e. we reconstruct an original semantic opposition between *fluiq `chest' and *tqha `breastbone', with both meanings probably merged in one in ||Xegwi).

Nossob: |'Auni fan ~ fan. ? Distinct from Hëi-si `female breast'.

Taa: Kakia f\am. ? All three varieties of Taa have different equivalents, of which !Xoö /é: `chest' (distinct from fqhe: `female breast') phonetically coincides with Proto-Khoe *//u `chest' (Vossen 1997: 426) and quite likely represents a borrowing from the |Gwi-||Gana cluster; and N|u||en \u `chest' is either a typo for //u (see a similar case for bird above) or, alternately, could be compared with !Xoö \üi `breastbone'. This leaves Kakia \\am (distinct from Hxa:n-sa `female breasts') as the only form for which it is difficult to suggest a secondary origin.

Tuu+: The correspondence between !Ui *|uiq and Kakia (= Proto-Taa?) f\am is almost exactly the same as in the word for `liver' (see below), likely reflecting Proto-Tuu *|ý- with different suffixal extensions (!Ui Taa *-/a/m). I'Auni fan is incompatible with this stem.

BURN (tr.) [?]

!Ui: *||a (|Xam Öà(:} ~ fle(:), ||Ng!ke la ~ Öå(:)). 0 Although the forms by themselves are

glossed as intransitive in Bleek's sources, textual examples clearly confirm transitive use as well, e. g. floï Je sa, ha fla ö “the sun comes, it burns me” (Bleek 1956: 545), etc. For modern N|uu, Sands et al. 2006 give !xao as the main equivalent; this root is listed for ||Ng!ke as !xau `to kindle, make or light a fire', and its cognates in the Nossob languages have the same semantics (I'Auni !xau `to light (fire)', |Haasi !xau `to kindle'). Overall, the data are insufficient to reach a certain conclusion, but it is quite possible that this word, originally only taking `fire' as its object, has widened its scope in N|uu. Examples of transitive usage also attested for ||Ku||e fla: `burn'. In ||Xegwi, fla is only attested in the meaning `to cook' by Bleek; no other equivalents are known for the meaning `to burn' in available sources. On the whole, there are sufficient reasons to think that both `burn (tr.)' and `burn (intr.)' in Proto-!Ui were expressed by the same root *fla (|Xam and ||Ng!ke fle represent a secondary morphophonological variant, probably fused with an agreement marker).

Nossob: Not reconstructible. 0 For |'Auni, the only attested form is la `to burn, light a fire, roast', with one accompanying example: la n l'i `light the fire', meaning that the semantics could have actually been `light, kindle'. For |Haasi, Story lists the form flo: `to burn (tr.)', but it is not confirmed by textual examples -- actually, the only textual example for this form is ' la flo: `the sun is hot', which may, of course, be interpreted as `the sun burns', but there is no explicit justification for this. Intransitive `burn' = `to be cooked' is actually attested as fla (Owi: k'i la fla k'a `the meat is burning', Owi: k'i fla `the meat is cooked').

Taa: Not reconstructible. 0 The only solidly attested equivalent for `to burn (both tr. and intr.)' is !Xoö O'a:, clearly the same as Kakia Owa ~ Owa `to make a fire' (e.g. si a Owa l'a `we will light a fire'). Intransitive fla `burn' is also found in Kakia (fla: wa fla a `the fire is burning'); in !Xoö, however, the meaning of the cognate flaha is listed as `set alight, set on fire, torch (e.g. tobacco, the veld, a hut), singe', indicating transitive use.

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 Onomasiological reconstruction in this particular case is seriously hampered by what looks like incomplete and inaccurate semantic glossing in both older and newer sources of data, and by the difficulties in distinguishing between transitive and intransitive usages of verbal stems, as well as subtle semantic distinctions between `to light, kindle' (= `to make to begin to burn') and `to burn down' (= `to reduce to ashes by burning'). Clearly, the verbal root *||a is in itself well preserved in all three branches of Tuu, but whether it was indeed the basic equivalent of the meaning `burn' in contexts like `I burned [down] the house' remains unclear. For now, we should probably exclude this item from any calculations.

CLAW (= FINGERNAIL) [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *||qo-rV (|Xam flur(r)u, ||Ng!ke fluri-si, jKho-M floro(-si), N|uu flqoro-si, ||Xegwi-B flola). 0 The detachable origins of the second syllable are hinted at by plural forms in |Xam: flu-flu-(t)tdn, where the original expression of plurality is represented by root reduplication. In all other languages, the nominal suffix of the singular form has completely fused with the root. It must be noted that the form in ||Xegwi-Z is completely different: sg. I'elo-lorj, pl. !'elo-le, of unknown origin.

Nossob: I'Auni Öîòà-sa. 0 The situation in |Haasi is not clear. Story lists the form k'a=fa, correctly identifies it as plural and further connects it with fu `finger', which seems to be a phonetic variant of the same root. Further etymological connection of this word is clearly with !Xoö fa `foot, spoor, track, hoof of an ungulate' and its cognates (see foot below). Given that there are no textual examples confirming the semantics of `fingernail', the glossing may very well be erroneous.

Taa: (a) *||qu- ( !Xoô lqû-le, pl. flqû-n-sâ); (b) *||a?m (!Xoö fa?m, Kakia pl. j'nm-te). 0 For

!Xoö, Traill lists two synonymous equivalents with the meaning `fingernail' without specifying any semantic differentiations. The former is a perfect etymological match for Proto-!Ui *||qo-rV (right down to the detachable suffix of the sg. form), but is not supported by older data on Taa. The latter has no parallels in !Ui, but could be equated with Kakia j'nm-te assuming that the dental click j here is a mistranscription for lateral | (these two symbols seem to be frequently mixed up in Bleek's materials on Kakia). It must be noted that if Öà?ò is analyzed as Öà?-ò (where -m is a fossilized plural marker, as in fa: `stick', pl. fa-m id. and many other examples), the forms are comparable with Proto-Kalahari Khoe *fa `fingernail' (Vossen 1997: 436) and could be interpreted as old borrowings from a Khoe source, leaving only *||qu- as a viable etymon.

Tuu+: The form *||qu-rV (where *-rV is likely to have been a detachable segment, appearing only in sg. forms) may safely be reconstructed for Proto-Tuu based on equidistant evidence from all three branches.

CLOUD [-]

!Ui: Not reconstructible. 0 Each language or dialect cluster has its own equivalent: (a) |Xam jwa^-grn; (b) | |Ng!ke th:-ke (pl. form) = N|uu %o:-si (reflecting *to- or *do-); (c) ||Xegwi-B lxe:r (dubious form).

Nossob: Not reconstructible. 0 I'Auni j'hum-sa cannot be compared with |Haasi !al=jxwai; the second form is clearly of composite origin, but the two halves are not easily decipherable.

Taa: Not reconstructible. 0 !Xoö and N|u||en employ different periphrastic expressions for the concept: !Xoö !qhä:=jqhüä, lit. `water-hair' vs. N|u||en !xwe: Jarri, lit. `rain-sky'. KakiaWé `cloud' is unclear and without further connections.

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 The generic concept of `cloud' is clearly unstable in Tuu, although specific narrow terms denoting various types of clouds are encountered in !Xoö (e.g. qo: `fairweather cumulus') and other languages. This word should probably be excluded from comparison.

COLD [-]

!Ui: Not reconstructible. 0 Another unstable concept. In |Xam, no fewer than three

equivalents are attested: (a) x'aof ~ x'ao `cold', (b) sérri `cool, cold', (c) lxwe: `to be cold, become cold'. Attested examples are insufficient to draw clear semantic distinctions between these forms. In the N|uu cluster, most sources are in agreement on a single root, cf. ||Ng!ke j'hu: = fKho-M j'hu = N|uu j'hü: (but cf. additionally ||Ng!ke si:-ya `to be

cold', fKho-D karî?î `cold'). ||Xegwi-Z jke?e `cold' contrasts with ||Xegwi-B !xoa `cold'. For most of these forms, it is hard to find etymological connections, but neither do they look like recent borrowings from Khoe or other sources.

Nossob: I'Auni fl'o{a. 0 In the early source Bleek 1929: 29, flxau `cold' is listed instead. Not attested in |Haasi at all.

Taa: *||ä?ü (!Xoö fla?ü, Kakia flx'we:, N|u||en flk'äü). 0 The phonetic discrepancy between Traill's !Xoö and Bleek's earlier data is suspicious, but it may be argued that her transcriptions of ejective click effluxes actually reflect the same intervocalic glottal stop as in !Xoö. In the case of Kakia, she glosses the word as `wind, cold', but it is likely that she confuses here the reflexes of two separate roots, e.g. in si ia ti flx'we: “we are cold” the form flx'we: = !Xoö fla?ü `cold', but in flx'we: !xai “a big wind” the form flx'we: = !Xoö fqhùe `wind' (see wind).

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 It is tempting to connect Taa *||ä?ü with at least |Xam flxwe: (and possibly I'Auni flxau if this is indeed a real form), but the discrepancy in effluxes is disconcerting, with additional examples for such a correspondence being hard to find. In any case, since there are problems with confirming the archaic origins of flxwe even on the !Ui level, this can hardly be counted as a lexicostatistical match on grounds of poor distribution.

COME [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *si ~ *sa (|Xam s:e, ||Ng!ke si ~ se ~ se-ya ~ sa, fKho-M si ~ si-ya ~ sa, fKho-D sï-yâ, N|uu sa: ~ ca:, ||Kxau sa: ~ se:, ||Ku||e sa ~ si, ||Xegwi-Z, ||Xegwi-LH sa). 0 In addition to seemingly random variation of the root vocalism, some sources also register a glottalic articulation of the initial sibilant, e.g. |Xam s:e ~ ss'e ~ s:a: ~ ss'a: (W. Bleek). The reason for these variations is unclear; some of them may represent fusions of the root with agreement markers, but since few other verbal roots with codas in either -a or -i display so much variation, this is clearly not the only reason.

Nossob: *s[']i ~ *sa (|'Auni sa ~ sé ~ si, |Haasi c'i). 0 Nossob language data shows more or less the same variation as !Ui.

Taa: *si ~ *sa (!Xoô sî:, Kakia si ~ sa, N|u||en sa ~ se ~ si ~ sa). 0 The precise !Xoö forms are glossed as follows: sî: `come arrive', sï: (var. form sa-V) `come to, come up to'. Cf. also sâ: `go'.

Tuu+: *si ~ *sa. 0 Vocalic variation in this root clearly goes all the way back to Proto- Tuu. If the (presumably accurately defined) situation in !Xoö is deemed indicative, *si may be thought of as the original unbound form (infinitive, etc.) while *sa would be the stem variant used in conjunction with agreement markers. Still, the general issue remains open.

DIE [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *|'a (|Xam j'a, ||Ng!ke j'a:, fKho-M, fKho-D j'a, N|uu j'a:, ||Kxau j'a, ||Ku||e j'a, ||Xegwi-Z

la:, ||Xegwi-B j'a:). 0 Apart from a strange lack of glottalic articulation in some of the attested varieties of ||Xegwi (cf. also ||Xegwi-LH ja: `dead'), all languages clearly reflect a single form *j'a.

Nossob: |'Auni j'a `dead'. 0 |Haasi seems to have lost the old root, since Story only records !ho `to die', !hwa: `dead' -- an innovation without a definitive etymology (cf., perhaps, !Xoö !hu `be old'?).

Taa: *|'a (!Xoô j'â:, Kakia j'a ~ j'a:, N|u||en j'a:).

Tuu+: *|'a. 0 This is one of the most stable and widely distributed verbal roots in Tuu.

18. DOG [[!Ui + Nossob] + Taa]

!Ui: *thu- (|Xam Iwiq ~ luiq ~ !hwiq, ||Ng!ke !wir, fKho-D f'än, N|uu (W) fhun ~ (E) fhup,

||Kxau fhuni, ||Ku||e !'wirj, !Gä!ne !'inyi, Seroa kuenia, ||Xegwi-Z Awa ~ Awer ~ %we, pl. Au- me, ||Xegwi-LH Ahwir, pl. Ahu-miy). ? Despite the seemingly chaotic array of reflexes, all forms are related. Original palatal articulation of the click is preserved in N|uu and confirmed by the regular development into a lateral affricate in ||Xegwi. Aspiration of the click is strongly confirmed by the same two languages (for ||Xegwi, only in the LH doculect, which seems to be more phonetically reliable than ||Xegwi-Z). As for the coda, most of the languages reflect the stem *^è-ï³ (preserved as such in ||Kxau, losing the final vowel in N|uu, weakened to *fhu-ï ~ *fhu-ir in |Xam and ||Xegwi), but it seems that at least some dialects of ||Xegwi had different stem extensions (Awa ^ *fhu-a?). lexical statistical language diachronic

Nossob: (|'Auni f5:, |Haasi fhäy). ? Reconstruction of the coda is highly approximate.

Taa: *tqha- (!Xoô fqhài, pl. fqhà-ba-tê, Kakia fxai ~ !xài ~ !ài, N|u||en fhi ~ fi ~ fxi:). ? The

paradigm in !Xoö shows that *-i is a detachable class marker.

Tuu+: *^ç-. ? All attested forms are related through recurrent correspondences (for N|uu -h- vs. !Xoö -qh-, see hair, TOOTH; rounded vocalism in !Ui vs. unrounded vocalism in Taa is very frequent, see breast, etc.). The Nossob forms with their nasal coda are notably closer to !Ui than to Taa; it seems that the full stem *^-ï³ separates !Ui and Nossob from Taa *^-³.

19. DRINK [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *to'a- (|Xam h'wa ~ h'wï: ~ h'wü:, ||Ng!ke h'a: ~ h'û ~ h'ë ~ Öõ'à, fKho-M h'û ~ h'ëï, N|uu h'àï, |Ku|e kwa ~ Hx'wàï, Seroa h'ä, !Ga!ne h'a:, ||Xegwi-Z pres. h'i, past h'a:, ||Xegwi-LH h'ëï). ? Secondary labialisation in |Xam under unclear conditions, as in many other examples.

Nossob: *to'a- (|'Auni h'a: ~ h'ë, |Haasi h'a).

Taa: *^'ah- (!Xoö h'a:h, var. h'ah-V, Kakia h'a ~ h'a: ~ h'e: ~ Öõà:, N|u|en h'a-a ~ h'a-u).

Tuu+: *^'a(h>-. ? An extremely stable basic verbal root, well preserved in every language. At least some of the attested variants, most notably *h'a- and nasalized *h'a, must go all the way back to Proto-Tuu where they may have been, as in !Xoö, indicative of free and bound (“variable”) usage. Other variants (h% h'ë, h'aï, etc.) probably represent fusion with various auxiliary particles. It is worth noting that this root represents one of the best known isoglosses between Tuu and Khoe, cf. Proto-Kxoe *h'a `to drink' (Vossen 1997: 497), but since in both cases the word is clearly reconstructible to the topmost level, no a priori judgment can be made on the direction of borrowing, or even on whether this is indeed a borrowing or a super-archaic retention from a common linguistic ancestor of both Tuu and Khoe.

20. DRY [!Ui + Taa] [- Nossob] (?)

* !Ui: (?) *||o (|Xam Öî: ~ Öý: ~ Öî, N|uu flo:). ? This concept is not too well attested for !Ui languages; additionally, it is not easy to distinguish between the required semantics of `dry = not wet (e.g. of clothes)' and `dry = dessicated, dried up'. Still, such examples as flair flai:e se Öý: `...so that the inside of the house may dry' (Bleek 1956: 581) confirm reliability of the item in |Xam, and the overall reconstruction is based on the correlation between |Xam, N|uu, and ||Xegwi-B flo: `thirsty' (`dry' is not attested for ||Xegwi, but the semantic shift or extension from `dry' ^ `thirsty' is trivial).

Nossob: I'Auni flx'om. 0 Not attested in |Haasi.

Taa: (a) !Xoö /î:; (b) !Xoö flûaf. 0 Not attested in either Kakia or N|u||en. For !Xoö, Traill lists two synonyms without specifying the distinctions. It may, however, be reasonably conjectured that /'î: is an areal root, since it is well attested across Khoe (Vossen 1997: 497), whereas for flûaf no immediate source of borrowing can be detected.

Tuu+: (?) *||or-. 0 Proto-!Ui *flo and !Xoô flûaf are formally traceable back to a single source, although pharyngealized articulation in !Xoö vs. lack thereof in N|uu is somewhat puzzling. The only attested Nossob form, I'Auni flx'om, has no known parallels; if it is phonetically and semantically accurate (no guarantee), it can only be treated as an innovation of unknown origin.

EAR [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *fu- (|Xam Ju-ntu, ||Ng!ke lwe:(-ntu) ~ Ju:-ntu, jKho-M fui(-si), N|uu fui-si, ||Kxau Iwe:- ntu, l|Ku||e de, ||Xegwi-Z bwe, pl. bu-me, ||Xegwi-LH ÿwï:). 0 All languages show traces of the original root *fu- (click correspondences are regular; the development *f- ^ Ü,- in ||Xegwi is unique, but not contradicted by any other evidence, and ties in well with the general tendency of loss of palatal click articulation; ||Ku||e d- is also a regular reflex of both the alveolar and the palatal clicks); codas are different across most of major dialect clusters, reflecting such morphological variants as *fu-ntu and *fu-i.

Nossob: *fu- (|'Auni fui, (?) |Haasi q=k'u=fa-am). 0 The attested form in |Haasi contains the 1st p. possessive prefix y= and the plural prefix =ku=. The discrepancy in vocalism between |Haasi and |'Auni is more serious, but if the original suffixed stem was fu-a (cf. Taa), elision of the labial element in such a complex form could be a possibility (hard to confirm or disprove). In theory, it would be possible to think of fa- as the original root shape in Proto-Nossob assuming that |'Auni fui is a form influenced by or directly borrowed from N|uu, but there is no conclusive evidence for such an assumption.

Taa: *fu- (!Xoö füäh, Kakia Iwa:, N|u||en fu-sa, pl. fu-i-te). 0 As in !Ui, all forms reflect the base root *fu- with different suffixal extensions (*fu-a, *fu-sa).

Tuu+: *fu-. 0 Although it is hardly possible to unambiguously reconstruct the original paradigm for this root, given the massive amount of variation across different lineages, all languages (with the possible exception of |Haasi) clearly show that *fu- was the original root. No specific morphological isoglosses across the three branches.

EARTH (= SAND) [-]

!Ui: *!(q)'âü (|Xam Ik'àü, ||Ng!ke l'àü, N|uu l'àü). 0 This concept is rather poorly attested in extinct languages and is usually not distinct from `sand' (typically of the entire Khoisan area). At least the isogloss between |Xam and N|uu is reliable, though reconstruction of the click efflux is ambiguous (Bleek and Lloyd's transcription of the form with -k'- suggests something other than a standard glottalized efflux -- possibly a uvular release -- but this seemingly contradicts the N|uu transcription which shows no signs of uvular articulation).

Nossob: (?) *[a?a (|'Auni la:a ~ fa `ground', la:a `dust'; |Haasi laa `ground'). 0 Assuming that there is no lexical distinction between `earth' (as substance) and `ground' (as surface), which is a rather typical situation for San languages, we can tentatively set up *la?a as the Proto-Nossob equivalent; reconstruction of the coda as -a?a is confirmed by the transcription both in |'Auni (where it is reflected as variation between -a(:)a and -'a) and in |Haasi (doubled -aa). Additionally, cf. |'Auni !'aü `dust', which could either be an archaic retention with a slight semantic shift, or a borrowing from N|uu.

Taa: *fx'um (!Xoö fx'ûm, Kakia !um ~ Hum ~ Öê'îò, N|u||en !om-sa `ground', fum `ground, sand'). ? We rely on the accurately transcribed !Xoö form for the phonological reconstruction; Bleek's transcriptions of Kakia and N|u||en probably reflect the usual inaccuracies characteristic of items with original palatal clicks.

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. ? Each of the three main branches has its own equivalent. Of these, only Proto-Nossob *[a?a has a transparent external etymology in !Xoö la?a `below; to lower', indicating that `ground' (surface) rather than `earth' (substance) was, after all, the original meaning in the Nossob languages.

EAT [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: *?â (|Xam ha: ~ ha, ||Ng!ke a ~ ë ~ ëï, fKho-M à ~ àã, fKho-D ?àã, N|uu ?a, ||Kxau ?a, ||Ku||e ë, ||Xegwi-Z pres. ?ï, past ?a:, ||Xegwi-LH ?ï: ~ ?ir). ? Vocalic variation here is similar to the situation with COME q.v.; original root vocalism a is strongly suggested by external data.

Nossob: *?a ~ *?â (|'Auni a ~ hà ~ hàa, |Haasi à:).

Taa: *?ä (!Xoö ?a:, var. form ?a-V, Kakia a ~ a: ~ e: ~ é:, N|u||en a ~ ë).

Tuu+: *?a. ? All languages preserve the original root. Nasalization must be reconstructed as an intrinsic property of the original root vowel: it is extremely frequent across all three branches, and emerges clearly in such diagnostic forms as, e.g., the !Xoô nominalization ?a:-sà `eating, food'.

EGG [-]

!Ui: (?) *ta?wi (|Xam !âui ~ !àuwi ~ !k'âu:wi, ||Ng!ke !'häü, pl. !wi-tan, fKho-D fwi `ostrich egg', N|uu fui, ||Xegwi-Z Awirj, |Xegwi-LH Aw't). ? All of these forms are most likely related, since they all contain regular reflexes of the palatal click *f- (including the shift to a lateral affricate in ||Xegwi) and of the diphthong -ui (-wi). The overall shape of the root, however, is less clear. Perhaps the solution is hinted at by the quasi-suppletive paradigm recorded by D. Bleek for ||Ng!ke, which can be historically interpreted as going back to sg. *fa?wi, pl. *fui-ten with contraction of the singular stem in a long plural form; in this case, fui in modern N|uu would be a back-formation from the original plural form. The form*fa?wi (¦<-- *fa?bi?) would also agree perfectly with |Xam data, as well as explain the variation between presence and lack of glottalic articulation in the different doculects of ||Xegwi. Still, the reconstructed shape remains speculative in the absence of similar corroborating examples.

Nossob: (a) |'Auni !uï `ostrich egg'; (b) |Haasi k'ii. ? The |'Auni form is likely related to !Ui *fa?wi, but it is unclear in which capacity -- given the glossed semantics, and the glaring discrepancy with |Haasi, it could actually be a borrowing from N|uu (with misspelled click articulation). As for the |Haasi form, it has no external etymology at all.

Taa: *\u- (!Xoô fua, dimin. kâ=fu:-bê, Kakia Hwa:, N|u||en Jwot). ? All listed forms are compatible, given how frequently the palatal click is transcribed as lateral or alveolar in Bleek's Kakia and N|u||en records (see multiple other examples on this list); the basic root shape without suffixal extensions is *fu- as seen in the !Xoö diminutive form. It is not quite clear if !Xoô fu:, pl. fua-tê `empty ostrich egg' is a phonetic variant of the same root (with a voiceless click) or a completely different etymon.

* Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 Despite the obvious phonetic resemblance between !Ui (especially N|uu) and Taa forms, there is no easy scenario that would allow to reconcile them with each other (an original bisyllabic root like *fa?bi would not be expected to contract to *fu- in Taa, since there are plenty of stems with the shape CV(?)bi in !Xoö).

25. EYE [!Ui + Nossob] [- Taa]

!Ui: *c'a-xu (|Xam caxau, l|Ng!ke caxu ~ caxem, (Kho-M c'axau ~ c'axu ~ c'axdm, (Kho-D c'axam, N|uu c'axam, ||Kxau c'axo?, ||Ku||e caxu, ||Xegwi-Z sagu, ||Xegwi-LH c'agu, pl. c'a-q). 0 Unique example of a bisyllabic stem in which the intervocalic consonant is not a resonant; this implies that the stem is historically a compound formation. The first root is unequivocally reconstructible as *c'a- (most of the phonetically reliable sources mark glottalic articulation of the affricate); the second alternates between several variants (- xau ~ -xu ~ -xam), of which -xu is the most frequent one and is also often encountered as a nominal suffix in various words denoting surfaces (cf. in ||Ng!ke: f\a:-xu `foot', !a:- xu `sky', Ha:-xu `side'). It is very tempting to equate it with Proto-!Ui *xu `face' (|Xam xu, N|uu xu etc.), although this still leaves variants like -xam without a satisfactory explanation.

Nossob: (?) *cxo (|'Auni coo `eye/s/', c'a:xu(-ke) `eyes', |Haasi cxo, pl. cxoo). 0 The cluster cx- is extremely rare in |Haasi, making it all the more probable that the form cxo is contracted from an earlier bisyllabic form, clearly equatable with !Ui *c'axu. If so, |'Auni coo may further be regarded as its true cognate (with further simplification: *cxo ^ co), while the doublet form c'a:xu, also attested by D. Bleek, could be interpreted as a reborrowing from one of the dialects of N|uu (alternately, it could be an archaic preservation of the uncontracted form in some peripheral dialects or a higher register of the language, but this is unverifiable).

Taa: (?) *fü- ~ *!'ü- (!Xoö !'üï, pl. !ua-tê ~ !'uâ-nî, Kakia /x'wî, N|u||en f'ü). 0 Correspon dences are unique: !Xoö clearly shows an alveolar click, whereas all other varieties of Taa speak in favor of palatal articulation (N|u||en in particular, but Kakia // in Bleek's records very often transcribes an etymological palatal click, and almost never an alveolar one). This could be a serious argument for rejecting cognacy between !Xoö and Kakia-N|u||en; however, since there is no evidence in any of these languages for two different roots, and since `eye' is typically one of the most stable items on the Swadesh list, it seems more prudent to admit the possibility of an irregular development in one of the two clusters (perhaps contamination with some other root).

Tuu-: Not reconstructible. 0 For this case, much rides on whether it is possible to demonstrate that !Ui *c'a-xu (as well as Nossob *cxo, which looks like a contracted variant of the former) is a compound form of secondary origin. While its composite nature is evident from its structure, the first component is not immediately identifiable, but it is phonetically and semantically possible to equate it with !Xoô sà?a `face, surface'. The optimal, though not the only possible, scenario here would be: (a) Proto-Tuu *sa?- with typologically common polysemy `eye / face'; (b) Proto-Taa: *sa?- is retained in the meaning `face, surface', but replaced by an innovation in the meaning `eye'; (c) Proto- !Ui: *sa?- is replaced in the meaning `face, surface' by the innovation *xu (which has no cognates in Taa); the meaning `eye' is eventually transferred to the new compound *sa?-xu ^ *c'a-xu. Notably, such a scenario would hardly be compatible with the idea of a common ancestor for Taa and Nossob, but quite compatible with the idea of a common ancestor for Nossob and !Ui.

FAT (n.) [!Ui + [Nossob + Taa]]

!Ui: *so- (|Xam swérj, ||Ng!ke soa ~ sürj, fKho-M söe, N|uu sun (W) ~ sup (E), ||Xegwi-LH swi:). 0 Coda correspondences for this stem are extremely similar to the ones for DOG q.v., speaking in favor of reconstructing *so-ni for Proto-!Ui (original root vowel is *o rather than *u, which accounts for two different paths of assimilation: ^ *su-ni, leading to ||Ng!ke sü-r, N|uu su-n, or ^ *so-ne, leading to |Xam s:we-r, fKho-M sö-e). It is possible that ||Ng!ke so-a actually reflects the same root with a different suffixal extension.

Nossob: *so- (|Haasi cwa:). 0 Not attested in |'Auni, but cf. sa:a `fat' (adj.; polysemy `fat /n./' : `fat /adj./' is quite common for this word in Tuu languages). The |Haasi form regularly reflects *so-a (with expected affricativization); |'Auni sa:a is somewhat strange due to lack of labial articulation, but there are no solid counterexamples for the potential change *-oa--> -a-.

Taa: *sär (!Xoö sa:[ Kakia sa:). 0 Note pharyngealized articulation in !Xoö.

Tuu+: *sar-. 0 A clear isogloss between all three branches; vocalic correspondences between !Ui / Nossob, on one hand, and Taa, on the other, are recurrent, possibly reflecting Ú. Pharyngeal articulation of the vowel in !Xoö may be archaic (it finds no correlation in N|uu, the only !Ui language where pharyngealization is marked accurately, but pharyngeal articulation seems to be prohibited in this language in structures like *CVn ~ *CVp anyway). Morphologically, the stem in Nossob seems to be closer to Taa than to !Ui (*so-a or *so-a vs. *so-ni).

FEATHER (= HAIR)

It is preferable to exclude this word from comparison due to scant and dubious attestation. In both languages which have relatively modern descriptions (N|uu and !Xoö) the equivalent for feather is the same as for hair q.v. In many others the word is not explicitly attested (||Xegwi; both Nossob languages; N|u||en), and those few equivalents which are distinct from hair are dubious (e.g. Kakia dohé `feather' = !Xoö düh?e `white ostrich plume' and may in reality be a more specialized term; |Xam Öåïå ~ Öàïå `feather' is concurrent with feather = hair and may actually mean `wing' or a special type of feathers, etc.).

FIRE [!Ui + Nossob [+ Taa]]

!Ui: *|'i (|Xam j'i, ||Ng!ke j'i, fKho-M j'i, N|uu j'i:, ||Kxau j'i, ||Ku||e j'e, ||Xegwi-Z, ||Xegwi- LH ji). 0 Lack of glottalized efflux in ||Xegwi is surprising -- it is hardly a transcriptional error, being recorded independently in two doculects -- but still probably secondary, given the overwhelming testimony of other languages.

Nossob: *|'i (|'Auni j'i, |Haasi ji). 0 |Haasi shows the same lack of glottalized efflux as | Xegwi, but in this case it is not so surprising, since Story very rarely marks ejective articulation in clicks anyway (see person, for example).

Taa: *|'a- (!Xoö j'a:, Kakia j'a: ~ j'a, N|u||en j'a). 0 Nasalization in the coda is of morphological origin (the word belongs to Class 2 in !Xoö, typically marked by nasal suffixes).

Tuu+: *|'i. 0 Although all three forms are quite likely related, reconstruction of the original root vocalism poses problems due to discrepancy between !Ui-Nossob *-i (quite unambiguous) and Taa *-a ~ *-a. Purely phonetic reasons are out of the question here, since the correspondence is non-recurrent. From a morphological perspective, a scenario deriving *j'i from *j'a-i is not too likely, since there are numerous examples of -ai ~ -ae diphthongs in !Ui languages, and it is not clear what might have caused such a tight fusion in Proto-!Ui. The most probable hypothesis, therefore, is that there is an underlying contraction in the Taa form: *j'i- (root) + -a (class suffix) ^ *j'a with elision of the original root vowel. Of note is the near-total identity of this item with Proto- Khoe *j'(a)e `fire' (Vossen 1997: 435), but since in both cases the items are clearly traceable all the way back to the proto-language, no assumptions may be made at this point about the reasons for this similarity (ancient borrowing, common ancestry or even chance resemblance).

FISH [-]

* This word is excluded from comparison due to the near-total lack of the corresponding reality in the Tuu-speaking area and, subsequently, in Tuu languages as well. (Curiously, Doke records the form fëbë `fish' for (Kho-D, but it has no parallels anywhere and its origins are obscure).

FLY (v.) [!Ui + Nossob + Taa]

!Ui: (a) *||/h/au (|Xam lau ~ lhau ~ lhôu ~ Ixâu, ||Ng!ke Öîè ~ lhou); (b) *zer (N|uu ze:f). 0 Un

fortunately, this word is not attested in many languages, which makes the situation difficult to resolve. On one hand, the isogloss between |Xam and Bleek's records of ||Ng!ke is fairly strong, despite some phonetic problems (e.g. confusion about the click efflux), and speak in favor of an original !Ui root such as *\\lhlau. On the other hand, N|uu ze}, attested in a more modern variety of the N|uu cluster, is strongly confirmed as the original word for `fly' by its external parallels in both Nossob and Taa. Unclear if the former is really some sort of secondary synonym (perhaps `to fly up, to rise' as opposed to simply `to fly'?), or if, vice versa, the latter was somehow reintroduced into modern N|uu from an outside source (|'Auni?); better to take both as technical synonyms.

Nossob: |'Auni zé. 0 Not attested in |Haasi.

Taa: *çá¸ã (!Xoö çÿÐ, Kakia zöf ~ zwe9). 0 The parallel between !Xoö and Kakia is straightforward enough, right down to pharyngealization, but the labial vs. non-labial articulation of the vowel is surprising.

Tuu+: *3(o)e'. 0 The parallel between N|uu ze-}, |'Auni zé, and Taa *30$ hints at a common Tuu origin for all these forms, despite some issues with vocalism (particularly on the Taa side) and distribution (see notes on !Ui). There are further areal connections to Khoe, cf. the clearly related Naro cae? `to fly' (Visser 2001: 98); however, this Naro word has no further Khoe etymology, meaning that it might itself be of Taa origin (the Taa word seems to have also made it into (Hoan, cf. (Hoan zoe? `to fly straight' in Honken 1988: 65).

FOOT [-]

!Ui: *Qa (|Xam Iwa, ||Ng!ke jfa(-xu), ||Kxaupa-xu-r ~pa-xu-si `leg'). 0 Forms in |Xam, “old N|uu” (Bleek's ||Ng!ke), and ||Kxau (for which Meinhof lists the meaning `Bein', but there is no separate `Fuß') agree well with each other and point at a protoform with the “sixth click”. Other forms are less clear. For modern N|uu, Sands et al. 2006 list the form !x'u:-ke but warn that the recording may be inaccurate; this may, in fact, be the same form as !u:-ke `shoe' (Collins, Namaseb 2011: 35), which also puts the semantics in doubt. ||Xegwi-Z lhi?i = ||Xegwi-B \xe `foot' has no etymological parallels in !Ui (but see below).

Nossob: *!Xai (|'Auni !x'ai, |Haasi n=!hai). 0 |Haasi n= is a pronominal prefix (`my'). Both forms are clearly related, but the click efflux is ambiguous, probably due to mistranscription in one out of the two cases, or in both.

Taa: *fu- (!Xoö fa:, Kakia fa ~ fa ~ J5, N|u||en fu). 0 Also frequently encountered in the bisyllabic variant *fu-ma, most likely a former diminutive: !Xoô fa-ma-tê pl. `feet', Kakia Jfu-ma ~ Ju-mma `foot', N|u||en fa-ma `claws, little feet'.

Tuu: Not reconstructible. 0 Each of the three subgroups has its own root to denote the required meaning, with no obvious etymologies in the other ones. It is quite tempting to relate Taa *fu- with !Ui *ça, especially considering the labialization in |Xam Iwa; however, its secondary nature is strongly hinted at by ||Ng!ke Ja- and ||Kxau p.a-xu-, and the correspondence !Ui *a : Taa *u finds no reliable confirming examples. The meaning `foot' does seem to be generally unstable in Tuu; for a possible example of semantic shift, cf. ||Xegwi \hi?i `foot' = !Xoö \qhv `to walk (pl.)' (very likely the same root, implying a nominalization in ||Xegwi).