Loanwords in Ket Edward J. Vajda - Linguistics

1Loanwords in KetEdward J. Vajda1. The language and its speakersKet is the sole surviving member of the formerly widespread Yeniseian(Yeniseian) family. Substrate river names and 17th century Tsarist fur tax recordsattest to the existence of other, now extinct Yeniseian-speaking groups throughoutmuch of the taiga forests of central and western Siberia. Several of theselanguages were recorded in varying degrees of lexical and grammatical detailbefore they vanished. Figure 1, adapted from Vajda (2009+) shows the knownmembers of the Yeniseian family in their likely subgrouping.Figure 1: Documented members of the Yeniseian language family

2The Ket-Yugh subgroup (Northern Yeniseian) is obvious from ample lexical andgrammatical homologies, as is the close connection between Kott and Assan. Theposition of Pumpokol is more difficult to assess. This language probably forms anearly branch with Arin, as presented above; however, it may be that Arin andPumpokol form separate primary nodes, a possibility that cannot be excludedgiven the scanty documentation of both languages. Because some Yugh materialwas misidentified as Pumpokol in the early attestations, identifying genuinePumpokol forms can sometimes be difficult. The fullest and most accessibleaccount of data known from the extinct members of Yeniseian can be found inWerner (2005).Today the Ket as an ethnic group number around 1200, but fewer than 200can be regarded as fluent speakers. Exhaustive sociolinguistic surveys conductedby the ethnographer V. P. Krivonogov during the past two decades (Krivonogov1998, 2003) attest to the rapid and apparently irrevocable language shift toRussian among the ethnic Ket, as well as to a rise in inter-ethnic marriages andthe beginnings of a sort of Ket diaspora, where over 200 ethnic Ket have now lefttheir native Turukhansk District to reside in other parts of the RussianFederations. Most fluent speakers of Ket are older than 50.As shown in Map 1, the location of villages where concentrations of Ketspeakers reside today is generally farther north than the forests the Ket and otherYeniseian tribes inhabited during the 1600s, when Russians first made contactwith them.

Map 1: Ket in its geographical context3

4Map 2: Location of contemporary speakers of Ket (shown in black) and of Yeniseian groups in1600 as well as Yeniseian substrate river names (marked by labels such as -ses)

5The labels -ses, -šet, and so forth in Figure 2 provide a rough approximation 1 ofareas located outside of the documented area inhabited by Yeniseian speakersthat nevertheless contain river names based on cognates of the Ket word for river,ses, or water ul. These vast areas presumably represent places of formerhabitation of linguistic relatives of the Ket prior to the Russians’ arrival in Siberiaafter 1582. In many cases, the substrate river names appear to be closely relatedto one of the known Yeniseian languages: Ket (-ses, -sis), Yugh (-čes), Kott (-šet),Assan (-čet), Arin (-sat), Pumpokol (-dat, -tat). The widespread hydronymicformants -tys or –tyš, represented in the river name Irtysh and in the names ofmany smaller rivers in Western Siberia, may attest to a distinct branch ofYeniseian that otherwise disappeared without a trace. Because the hydronymsnorth of Mongolia and west of Lake Baikal are dialectally the most diverse, thisgeneral area likely represents the geographic origin of the Yeniseian-speakingtribes.The ethnonym Ket was adopted only in the 1930s, based on the word kɛ’t‘person, human being’. Prior to this time, the Russians called the Ket “YeniseiOstyak”, hardly distinguishing them from their linguistically unrelated neighborsto the west, the Selkup (formerly the “Ostyak-Samoyed”) and the Ugric-speakingKhanty (formerly known simply as “Ostyak”). In tsarist times, the Russiansgenerally referred to all of the West Siberian forest people as “Ostyaks” of somesort, a term whose origin remains unclear; cf. Georg (2007: 11-15) for the mostauthoritative discussion of Yeniseian ethnonyms. Most Ket people today live insmall villages on the middle reaches of the Yenisei River or its tributaries. The1 Ket-related hydronyms of Siberia include additional minor variations (sis ~ ses ~ sas, set ~ sat,det ~ dat, etc.) not shown in Map 2 that are difficult to connect with specific Yeniseian languagesor dialects since they appear to reflect nothing more than pronunciation adjustments on the partof the peoples who took over the given territory from Yeniseian speakers. South Siberian Turkicspeakers, for example, probably harmonized vowel quality (e ~ a) to match the articulation of thepreceding vowel in many cases. Also not shown are areas with river names ending in -tym, -tom,-sym, etc., which are of unknown origin but tend to be prevalent in areas known to be inhabitedby Yeniseian tribes in the 1600s. Also not shown are toponyms in –tes, also conceivably Yeniseian,though no documented Yeniseian language shows this pronounciation of the word for river. Cf.Werner (2006: 148-156) for more detail on the distribution of early Yeniseian peoples and theircultures.

6largest concentration – about 250 – is to be found in Kellog Village on the YeloguiRiver, though only a minority of these are fluent speakers. This village, like mostlocations inhabited by the Ket, is accessible to the outside world only by boat (insummer) or helicopter (year round).The Ket, as well as their documented linguistic relatives, were the last huntergatherersof North Asia outside the Pacific Rim. Having no domesticated animalsbesides the dog, the Yeniseian tribes had been pushed northward out of southSiberia by pastoral peoples such as the Yenisei Kirghiz. Even before the coming ofthe Russians the Ket had experienced centuries of encroachment from thereindeer-breeding Enets to the north and the Evenki to the east, as attested in Ketfolklore. The Southern Ket, however, had formed a sort of social alliance with theSelkup-speaking reindeer-breeders to the west.All three dialects of Ket are rapidly disappearing today. Northern Ket wasreported to have only a single speaker in 2006, though a second fluent speakerhas since been identified. Attempts to write Ket using a Latin script based onCentral Ket in the 1930s or a Cyrillic script oriented toward the Southern Ketdialect in the 1990s did little to reverse this trend, though basic lessons in Ketlanguage continue to be given in the first few grades of primary school in Kellogand a few other villages even today. While most ethnic Ket spoke their languagefluently and used Russian, at most, as a second language even as late as the1920s, the events of the Soviet period irrevocably placed Ket on the path towardoblivion. During the 1930s the Ket were collectivized and forced to live alongsideRussians and other Native Siberian minorities in the riverside villages where theycurrently reside, leading to a general adoption of Russian for interethniccommunication. During the 1960s the Ket were forced to give up their children toboarding-school education where a Russian-only rule was vigorously enforced.This led to general language shift by the younger generations. By the time a newpolicy of ethnic education was adopted in the 1980s, leading to the creation ofelementary language textbooks in the 1990s, most Ket children entered primaryschool speaking little or no Ket. As a rule, neither their parents nor even theirschoolteachers were sufficiently fluent in Ket to pass it on as a native tongue. Afew hours a week of elementary-school lessons of Ket as a second language couldnot reverse the overwhelming trend toward language replacement by Russian.

9major new works on Yeniseian lexicon, both of which are currently in preparationunder the sponsorship of the Linguistics Department of the Max Planck Institutefor Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. The first is a comprehensive Ket-Russian-English-German dictionary of words gathered from all three Ket dialects reelicitedin idiomatic context from the remaining native speakers (Kotorova ed.2009+). The second is an etymological dictionary of Yeniseian aimed atexplaining, whenever possible, the origins of all known Yeniseian vocabulary,including loanwords (Vajda & Werner 2009+). The present study has bothinformed and been informed by both of these projects.3. Contact situations3.1. IntroductionAs isolated bands of hunter-gatherer-fishers, the Ket evolved a vocabularyuniquely suited to their taiga and riverine environment. Up until the 20th centurythe Ket had little intensive contact with other linguistic groups, since they lived assmall mobile bands in a vast northern forest. Most Ket words show no sign ofborrowing and quite a number of them are semantically rather unique. There arenouns conveying special attributes of northern ecology: atɛ́tliŋ ōks 3 ‘a lone tree ofone species in a pure stand of another species’, hʌlis ‘small raised mound in thetundra’, taʁo ‘swampy, treeless area in the taiga’, sɔlgup ‘point of land jutting outinto a small river’, etc. Many words express details of forest life: ɯráq ‘springcamp’, itáŋ ‘distance traveled between two encampments’ (< ī ‘day’ + tàŋ‘drag’), imtɛt ‘to harvest pine nuts’, tɯ̄t ‘swarms of bloodsucking insects (a major3 The phonemic prosody in the Ket examples is transcribed using: a macron denotes high-eventone (ōks ‘tree’); an apostrophe denotes abrupt tone ending in glottal constriction (bɔ’k ‘fire’); agrave accent denotes falling tone (ùs ‘birch tree’); an acute accent denotes rising pitch on asecond syllable (hɔráp ‘fish tail’); the lack of any tone mark on disyllabic or polysyllabic wordsindicates an initial syllable pitch peak (sɛniŋ ‘shaman’); finally, a double vowel denotes risingfallingtone on a geminate vowel (huut ‘animal tail’). The forms given are from the Southern Ketdialect unless otherwise noted.

10feature of forest life in the brief summer)’, lilgej ‘the crunch of snow under movingsled runners’, qɯ’j ‘large piece of birchbark used to cover the summer tent’, etc.Characteristic words and phrases express key aspects of Ket spiritual culture: sɛniŋ‘shaman’, hās ‘shaman’s drum’, allɛĺ ‘female guardian spirit image’, ulvéj ‘theprimary soul from among the seven spirits associated with each person’. Fire wasconceived as a feminine-class animate being: bɔ’k dγ̄p ‘fire burns’ (literally, ‘fire,she-eats’). The Ket used specialized, taboo-related vocabulary during their BearCeremony, an ancient tradition featuring the ritualized slaughter andconsumption of a bear thought to be the reincarnation of a human relative; forexample, huktɛŋ are ‘bear eyes’, while dɛstáŋ are eyes of other animals or people.A rich inventory of spatial adverbs expresses specific types of orientation withregard to rivers or lakes and forested land: igda ‘from the forest to the riverbank’,ʌtá ‘from water to shore’, aγá ‘from shore to forest’, ɛtá ‘movement on foot upriveralong the ice’, etc. These adverbs can be incorporated into motion verbs. Someadjectives build classificatory distinctions involving animacy: sukŋ ‘thick (said of atree)’, bōl ‘fat (person or animal)’, and bʌsl ‘fat, thick (object)’; ka’t ‘old, elderly(animals, people)’, qà or qa’ ‘old, big, grown up (said of children, young adults)’,and sīn ‘old (object or person; also said of large trees)’; kitéj ‘young (animals,people)’ and ki’ ‘new (object or plant)’. Some verbs have suppletive stems foranimate- and inanimate-class subjects: dīn ‘he (person or animal) stands’ [du-k-ain3MASC.SBJ-erect-PRES-stand], duγata ‘it (a masculine-class tree) stands’ [du-h-a-ta3MASC.SBJ-area-PRES-extend], ujbɔʁut ‘it (a movable, inanimate-class object) stands’[uj-b-a-qut at.rest-3INAN.SBJ-STATE-occupy.position]. Certain nouns describingnatural phenomena are more elaborately classificatory than is typical of mostEurasian languages: bɛ’s ‘falling snow’, tīk ‘layer of fallen snow on the ground’,tɔqpul ‘layer of fallen snow on branches’; also, huut ‘animal tail’, hi’s ‘bird tail’,hɔráp ‘fish tail’. But certain kinship terms are surprisingly generic with regard togender (bisɛṕ ‘brother, sister’, qīp ‘uncle, aunt’, qàl ‘grandchild, niece, nephew’),especially given the fact that Ket marriages were traditionally patrilocal andarranged on the basis of two exogamous phratries, called hɔγɔ́tpul (< hō ‘same’ +a’t ‘bone’ + hɯl ‘accumulation’). As far as can be ascertained, none of thisspecialized vocabulary is borrowed, though some of it could involve areal

11metaphoric diffusion. For example, Mongolian groups also refer to kinshiplineages using the word jas ‘bone’.Yeniseian vocabulary bears no clear genealogical affinity with other NorthAsian families. Contact with other peoples of Eurasian, however, either directly orthrough the mediation of neighboring tribes, has produced several layers ofloanwords. By far the largest layer results from recent Russian contact. A muchsmaller set of loanwords derives from contact with the Samoyedic-speakingSelkup reindeer breeders, who were the western neighbors of the Ket, or fromdiffusion north from the Turco-Mongol world of the steppes much farther south.The few attested loanwords that originated from the steppes, e.g., talɯń ‘flour’ (cf.Halh Mongolian talxan), may have diffused into Ket via other languages of thetaiga.It is possible that some words inherited from Common Yeniseian by Ket wereborrowed from Turkic or Uralic at some very great time depth, but these aredifficult to trace, and the direction of borrowing, if it occurred could have beenfrom rather than into Yeniseian. Yeniseian words for 'birchbark', 'birch tree','reindeer', and 'falling snow' bear some resemblance to words in Uralic, whileYeniseian 'stone' resembles Turkic words for stone.3.2. Contact with RussianCossacks and other Russian-speaking adventurers began to infiltrate the middlereaches of the Yenisei watershed less than two decades after Yermak’s successfulinvasion across the Urals in 1582. The Ket and other Yeniseian-speaking peopleswere soon incorporated into the fur-tax (yasak) system. Yasak entailed regularpayment of sable and other pelts by the natives to a local representative of theTsarist government, the voyevoda, who, as a rule, established a base camp in theform of a fort (ostrog) on some convenient riverway. Since the Ket were nomadichunters, contact with Russians in this early period was limited to a few briefencounters every year, when yasak was delivered. In general, Ket groups tried toavoid the Russians for fear their kinsman would be kidnapped as a means ofcoercing regular yasak payments. The southern Yeniseian peoples were more

12immediately affected by the Russian presence, since they found themselves tornbetween fur-tax obligations to the Russian newcomers as well as to the Turco-Mongol polities of the forest-steppe fringe. In the taxation tug of war thatdeveloped, such peoples as the Arin and Pumpokol were devastated by reprisalstaken against them by the Tatars for submitting to the Russian fur tax system. By1735 the Arin as a distinct ethnic community had all but disintegrated. By 1800the Assan and Pumpokol likewise melded with the local Russian or Turkicpopulations and their languages disappeared. The Kott lasted until at least the1840s, when Mathias Castrén worked with the last five known native speakers.Social, geographic and linguistic data on the extinct Yeniseian peoples can befound in Dolgix (1960) and Werner (2005).Another factor that decimated all of the tribes of the Yenisei watershed tosome significant degree was the introduction of European diseases (Alekseenko1967: 26). Recurrent smallpox epidemics during the course of the 17th century(notably in 1627-28 and again during the period 1654-1682) all but wiped outthe fisherfolk along the middle Yenisei, with the riverine Yugh especially hard hit.Although Yugh continued to be spoken by a few elderly people up to the early1970s (Heinrich Werner, p.c.), already by the mid-19th century the tribe haddecreased to several dozen individuals from an original population of probablyten times that number. Some of the Ket hunting groups, though affected by thesame epidemics, fared somewhat better, as their mobile upland lifestyle tookthem away from close contact with the Russians and others living in the riversidezones hardest hit. The Ket were likewise fortunate in living far enough northwardon the Yenisei so as to be out of range of reprisals by steppe peoples bent onkeeping their subjects from submitting to the Russians. In fact, after the coming ofthe Russians, the Ket gradually relocated considerably farther upstream along theYenisei. For most Ket groups, contact with the Russians continued to be limited totimes when separate family hunting parties emerged from the forest onto theriverbank during the spring to fish and pay their fur tax.The sporadic nature of Ket contact with the Russians remained little changeduntil the 1930s, and relatively few words from Russian were taken into thelanguage in this initial period. Early loanwords include trade items such as teslá‘adze’ (< Russian teslo ‘adze’), kurúk ‘hook’ (< Russian krʲuk ‘hook’), and postóp

13‘glass bottle’ (< Russian stopka ‘shot glass’). There are also a few terms relating toChristianity, e.g., ho’p ‘priest’ (< Russian pop ‘parish priest’), though the Ket didnot adopt the new religion but instead retained their traditional spiritual cultureinto the 20th century. Direct linguistic borrowing, however, was the exceptionrather than the rule, even for new realia. Rather, the Ket showed a more markedtendency to coin native terms for new objects, concepts, or social categories. Atypical example of these neologisms is bogdóm ‘gun’ (< Ket bo’k ‘fire’ + qām‘arrow’).Ket interaction with Russians underwent a drastic revolution as a result ofStalin’s collectivization campaign of the 1930s, which forced the Ket and otherNative Siberians to settle in Russian-style villages where they came increasinglyunder pressure to deal with spoken Russian on a regular basis. During the 1960sthe Soviet government intensified its policy of forcing Ket families to give up theirchildren to Russian-language boarding schools. This seems to have triggered thecrucial breaking point in transmission of the language, as Ket children born afterthe 1960s rarely learned fluent Ket. Older native speakers, however, continued touse Ket with relatively little influence from Russian, preferring instead to coinneologisms based on native morphological material, such as ēγ suul ‘iron sled’ for‘automobile, truck’. Nevertheless, the majority of Russian loans seem to date afterthe period of collectivization.3.3. Contact with other Siberian peoplesThe Yeniseian languages spoken to the south of Yugh and Ket, all of whichbecame extinct before massive Russian influence could affect them, show loansfrom South Siberian Turkic, especially in the realms of stockbreeding, farming, ormetallurgy: Kott bal ‘cattle’, bagar ‘copper’, šero ‘beer’; Kott/Assan tabat ‘camel’,kulun ‘foal’, araka ‘wine’; Assan talkan ‘flour’, alton ‘gold’; Arin ogus ‘bull’, bugdai‘wheat’, kajakok ‘butter’, etc. A few Turkic loans even name natural phenomena,e.g., Kott/Assan boru ‘wolf’, attesting to the pervasive Turkic influence on laterstages of these languages; cf. Ket qɨ̵̄t ‘wolf’ and Yugh Xɨ̵̄t ‘wolf’, terms presumablyinherited from Proto-Yeniseian.

14The contact situation for Ket and Yugh, the northern Yeniseian languages, isquite different, since these tribes were not in direct association withstockbreeding peoples of the steppes. Rather, the Ket in their taiga home lived indesultory proximity to reindeer-breeding tribes on all sides. The Nenets and Enetsgroups to the north, as well as the Evenki tribes pushing into the Yeniseiwatershed from eastern Siberia, tended to be adversarial toward the Ket. Contactwas sporadic and generally hostile, with few or no identifiable loanwords into theKet dialects from Nenets, Enets, or Evenki. A rare exception is soγuj ‘sokui’, anEvenki word in Northern and Central Ket for a type of pullover jacket without ahood (cf. Alekseenko 1967: 138). The situation with the Selkup was different,since the Ket developed friendly relations with this tribe and even exchangedmarriage partners after the traditional inter-Ket exogamous phratry systemcollapsed in the wake of smallpox epidemics. Selkup loans in Ket are somewhatmore common and include the ethynonym la’q ‘Selkup’, a word that means‘friend’ in Selkup, symbolizing the close relations between Ket and Selkuppeoples. There are also loans relating to domesticated reindeer (qobd ‘castratedreindeer’, ollas ‘reindeer calf’, kaγli ‘reindeer sled’), with some Ket in the YeloguiRiver area (near present-day Kellog Village) even adopting reindeer breeding bythe early 20th century. Other words shared between Ket and Selkup were morelikely borrowed in the other direction, notably Selkup aqlalta ‘guardian spiritimage’. This word is only found in the Selkup dialect spoken adjacent to Ket andlikely derives from an earlier pronunciation of Ket allɛĺ ~ allalt ‘guardian spiritdoll’ (the disappearance of the final -ta, which appears to have been a native Ketnominalizing suffix, gave rise to the final stress in the first variant). Xelimskij(1982: 238-239), conversely, interprets this word as a Selkup loan into Ket whichderives from a nominalization of the Selkup verb ‘to amaze’, an etymologyunlikely on semantic grounds. A few loanwords in Ket were likely borrowedthrough Selkup or Turkic and ultimately derive from more distant sources. One iskančá ‘(smoking) pipe’, a word of Chinese origin found in many Native Siberianlanguages. Another is Ket/Yugh na’n ‘bread’, which might represent a Wanderwortof Iranian origin, though it might just as likely be a nursery word.

154. Numbers and kinds of loanwords in Ket4.1. IntroductionThe subdatabase for Ket contains 1018 words, alongside 443 gaps, most involvingconcepts irrelevant or unknown to Ket speakers and therefore lacking anydedicated lexical designation. Most lexical gaps involve items alien to thetraditional world of taiga hunter-gatherers. These include exotic realia such as‘palm tree’, ‘elephant’, ‘beech tree’, ‘kangaroo’, etc., as well as technologicalconcepts or social categories typical of stratified sedentary society: ‘battery’,‘axle’, ‘judge’, ‘jury’, ‘birth certificate’, and so forth. Other gaps involve caseswhere Ket lacks a superordinate term that would correspond to a general categorytypically designated by a lexeme in other languages, such as ‘weapon’, ‘tool’,‘age’, ‘plant’. A number of the completed entries represent super-counterparts –single lexical items used to express two or more basic meanings. Once example isba’ŋ, the Ket noun used to refer to the concepts, ‘earth’, ‘land’, ‘soil’, as well as‘time’. Another is bisɛṕ, a generic word for ‘sibling’ that can be used to meaneither ‘brother’ or ‘sister’. Finally, a number of lexical gaps unfortunately resultfrom insufficient information about Ket vocabulary.Among the coded forms in the subdatabase, only 78 show clear evidence ofhaving been borrowed. In most of the remaining 940 cases, there is little or noevidence for borrowing, and the word must be considered as belonging to nativeKet vocabulary. While in a majority of these cases, the words in question wererecorded by linguists only during the mid 20th century, a comparison of core Ketvocabulary with that of the documented extinct Yeniseian languages (mostnotably Kott and Yugh) suggests that virtually all basic Ket words are of nativeprovenance. In the case of the clearly borrowed items, the age of most of themcan be surmised based of what is known historically about episodes of languagecontact. The overwhelming majority of clearly attested loanwords (72 out of 78)derive from Russian, with most of these acquired by Ket during the 20th century.Early Russian loans are defined as words incorporated into Ket before the 1930s,when the Ket were forced to settle down in Russian-style villages and began tocommunicate in Russian on a regular basis. These early loans can be identified on

16the basis of their more complete phonological adaptation (about which cf. §5below), or their meanings (i.e., they refer to Tsarist era categories such as‘priest’). In addition, there are a few cases where early Russian loans into Ketwere actually attested during the 19th century.It should be noted that some modern Ket words may ultimately derive fromearly Turkic or Uralic loans into ancient Yeniseian, though such a possibility isdifficult to verify. One such word is Ket qɯ̄nt ‘ant’, possibly associatedhistorically with Proto-Finno-Ugric *kuńće ‘ant’ (Xelimskij 1982: 244). Another isKet bo’q ‘bag net’, apparently connected with Selkup *pok ‘bag net’ (Alekseenko1967: 62). In such cases, however, it is not possible to determine with certaintywhether we are dealing with a chance resemblance or, in the case of a genuineloanword, to determine the direction or time of borrowing. Conversely, some pan-Yeniseian terms of basic vocabulary, such as ‘stone’ (Ket tɯ’s, Yugh čɯ’s, Kott šiš,Arin kes), are more likely to be the source of early loans into Common Turkic (cf.Proto-Turkic *taš ‘stone’). The dialectal differentiation of the Yeniseian words visà-visthe Turkic form suggest that, if the resemblance is more than simply chance,then it was Turkic that borrowed the word from Yeniseian, presumably from aYeniseian language with initial *t.In summary, there are no incontrovertible examples of basic Ket content words(body parts, kinship terms, words for basic actions and the like) originating asdirect loans from another language. Nor do borrowed nouns, adjectives, or verbsfrom Russian belong to the core vocabulary.4.2. Loanwords by semantic word classTable 1 shows the breakdown of loanwords from the four attested sourcelanguages into Ket by semantic word class. The decimal values indicate instanceswhere a native synonym exists for a given loanword.Table 1: Loanwords in Ket by donor language and semantic field (percentages)

17RussianMongolianSelkupEvenkiChineseTotalloanwordsNonloanwordsNouns 12.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 13.6 86.4Verbs 4 - - - - 4 96Function words 6.1 - - - - 6.1 93.9Adjectives 3.5 - - - - 3.5 96.5Adverbs - - - - - 0 100all words 8.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 9.7 90.3The vast majority of loanwords are nouns, which make up about 14% of thetotal number of nouns in the subdatabase. Loan verbs are much more rare, andare limited to the borrowing of Russian infinitives or nouns incorporated into theKet verb complex in the morpheme position normally reserved for nominal forms:(da-deld-uγabet ‘she shares it’ (< Russian delit' ‘to share’), da-kerasin-ataγit ‘sherubs him with kerosene’ (< Russian kerosin ‘kerosene’). Therefore, in a sense,even these verb-related loans are nominal in nature.4.3. Loanwords by semantic fieldA breakdown of percentages of loanwords in the 24 semantic fields represented inthe subdatabase likewise reflects the predominance of Russian loans incomparison to loans attested from other families.

18Table 2: Loanwords in Ket by donor language and semantic field (percentages)RussianMongolianSelkupEvenkiChineseTotalloanwordsNonloanwords1 The physical world 4.9 - - - - 4.9 95.12 Kinship 1.5 - - - - 1.5 98.53 Animals 6.7 - 1.7 - - 8.3 91.74 The body 3.3 - - - - 3.3 96.75 Food and drink 14.6 1.8 - - - 16.5 83.56 Clothing and grooming 13 - - - - 13 877 The house 23.1 - - - - 23.1 76.98 Agriculture and vegetation 12.8 - - 3.2 3.2 19.2 80.89 Basic actions and technology 10 - 1.7 - - 11.7 88.310 Motion 6 - - - - 6 9411 Possession 24.1 - - - - 24.1 75.912 Spatial relations 6.3 - - - - 6.3 93.713 Quantity 2.9 - - - - 2.9 97.114 Time 9.9 - - - - 9.9 90.115 Sense perception - - - - - 0 10016 Emotions and values 5.6 - - - - 5.6 94.417 Cognition 13.8 - - - - 13.8 86.218 Speech and language - - - - - 0 10019 Social and political relations 9.7 9.7 - - - 19.4 80.620 Warfare and hunting 3.5 - - - - 3.5 96.521 Law 30.8 - - - - 30.8 69.222 Religion and belief 15.4 - - - - 15.4 84.623 Modern world 54.8 4.8 - - - 59.5 40.524 Miscellaneous function words - - - - - 0 1008.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 9.7 90.3As can be seen from Table 2, loanwords are scattered widely across the semanticspectrum. A relatively larger number of loanwords belong to the categories Foodand drink (a total of 8 loans), The house (6), Possession (6), and Animals (5).Unsurprisingly, these are all semantic fields involving realia with which the Ketcame into regular daily contact only after the sedentarization campaign of the1930s. Even in these categories, it must be noted, the majority of new itemsencountered by the Ket after their adoption of a Russian village lifestyle receivednames based on native Ket neologisms rather than borrowing or even calquingbased on Russian, if they received any dedicated nominalization at all. Forexample, alongside Ket sa’j ‘tea’, a loanword deriving earlier from either Russiančaj or Mongol tsai, other drinks received native Ket nominalizations. Vodka cameto be referred to as bɔγul (< bɔ’k ‘fire’ + ūl ‘water’), and coffee was called qʌliŋ ūl

19(

20majority of such words: hɔ’p ‘priest’ (< Russian pop ‘parish priest’). A few takeother tones due to some feature of the original phonology. For example, theloanword kōn ‘horse’ (< Russian kon' ‘steed’) received high-even tone, apparentlybecause the final palatalized consonant in Russian served to raise the tongueheight in the pronunciation of the vowel to a level found only in high-even tonein Ket words. Only high-even tone allows the mid-high vowel allophones [e], [o],[γ], with these phonemes pronounced as the corresponding allophones [ɛ], [ɔ],[ʌ] in all other prosodic environments.6. Grammatical borrowingInterestingly, there are no attested instances of grammatical affixes borrowed byKet from other languages. A number of Ket function words, however, are clearlyof foreign origin (§6.2). By far the most striking effect of language contact is whatcould be called “typological accommodation” (cf. Vajda 2009+), whereby Ketspeakers gradually adapted their prefixing morphology to mimic the suffixingstructures found in all of the adjacent languages with which they came intocontact. Over time, this process profoundly affected the nominal morphology(§6.3.1) as well as productive patterns of finite verb stem creation (§6.3.2).Finally, the gradual change of Ket into a suffixing agglutinative language had thephonological effect of replacing the phonemic tones of monosyllables by wordinitialpitch on the first or second syllable of the resultant polysyllabic wordforms. This phonological adaptation will be examined first.6.1. Prosodic adaptationUnder the influence of the root-initial agglutinating languages of Inner Eurasia,the tonal prosody in Yeniseian developed partially into a non-phonemic wordaccentsystem so that in modern Ket phonemic differences in pitch are largely thedomain of monosyllabic words (Vajda 2004, 2008).

21Ket monosyllabic phonological words contain four phonemic prosodemes.These can be called “tones”, though they actually consist of an amalgam ofmelody, vowel length, vowel height and tenseness (in the case of mid vowels),and the presence or absence of laryngealization (creaky voice).(1) Phonemic prosodemes in Southern Ket monosyllablestonalvowel lengthphonationmid-vowelmelody(syllable type)typequalitysūlhigh-evenhalf-longneutral tense [e, γ, o]‘blood’(closed or open)su’labrupt risingshortlaryngealizedlax [ɛ, ʌ, ɔ]‘salmon’(closed or open)(creaky)sùlrising-fallinglongneutral lax [ɛ, ʌ, ɔ]‘snowsled’(closed or open)sùlfallingshortneutral lax [ɛ, ʌ, ɔ]‘hook’(closed only)In polysyllables, many of which were created by attachment of relationalmorphemes, distinctions in root prosody generally erode, being replaced by a riseand fall of pitch on the first two syllables that resembles word-initial stress. Thedegree of prosodic erosion – in other words the degree of clitic-like vs. suffix-likebehavior of the relational morpheme being attached – is free to vary to expressdistinctions in focus:(2) Degrees of prosodic erosion in ōp ‘father’ + da-ŋal ‘from’focused backgrounded nominalization using the suffix -sōp-da-ŋal ob-da-ŋal ɔb-da-ŋal-s ‘the one from father’Disyllabic stems have rising/falling pitch under focus or when pronounced inisolation. In a few, the pitch peak falls on the second syllable, giving the

22impression of stress on the second syllable. These are marked in our transcriptionwith an acute accent on the second syllable. The much more common syllableinitialprosodic prominence is left unmarked (though it is marked in (3) below forcontrast sake). This low-yield distinction in disyllables is likewise eroded by theattachment of relational morphemes:(3) Phonemic contrast in disyllabic stem prosody and its erosion before relationalmorphemesrising-falling pitch: qɔṕqun ‘cuckoos’ > qɔṕqun-di-ŋal ‘from the cuckoo’rising-high falling pitch: qɔpquń ‘cuckoos’ > qɔṕqun-na-ŋal‘from the cuckoos’The discourse-related replacement of phonemic prosody with a generally noncontrastiveword-initial emphasis in polysyllables renders modern Ket phonologycloser to that of the surrounding languages. Yeniseian failed to develop vowelharmony, but combinations of stem plus strings of grammatical suffixes or clitics –with only the first syllable nucleus capable of reflecting the language’s full rangeof phonemic distinctions – organizes polysyllabic phonological words in ananalogous fashion.6.2. Function morphemesKet has borrowed a few basic function words from Russian, including theconjunctions i ‘and’, a ‘and/but’. There is also the adverb bɛ’k ‘always’ (< Russianvek ‘century’) and the particle qōt (< Russian xot' ‘at least’) which has come to becombined with native Ket question words as a formant creating indefinitepronouns: qōt bisɛŋ ‘wherever’, qōt anɛt ‘whoever’, qōt akus ‘whatever’, etc.Perhaps the most interesting loan particle is Ket bēs ‘without (< Russian bez‘without’). This particle is preposed to a noun followed by the native Ketmorpheme -an, commonly known as the caritive case marker, which alreadyexpresses the meaning ‘without’: bēs qim-an ‘without a wife’ [without wifewithout].The loan particle bēs thus functions as a sort of optional circumfixal

23element, since unpreposed forms such as qim-an ‘without a wife’ [wife-without]remain entirely acceptable.6.3. Typological accommodationThis section examines how core Yeniseian morphological traits were graduallymodified to become more like the suffixal-agglutinating language type of thesurrounding peoples. Morphosyntactic development in both the nominal andverbal morphology is examined. I have called this process “typologicalaccommodation” (Vajda 2008), since it represents a sort of grammatical quasicalquing“by design”. Malcolm Ross’s (2001) term metatypy is too strong in thiscase, since what has occurred in Ket does not represent typological replacementbut rather the achievement of a new, unique hybrid between two originallyradically different morphological types. Adaptation to the suffixal agglutinatinglanguages of Inner Eurasia affected both the nominal morphology as well as thefinite verb string, yet did not involve the borrowing of a single morpheme.6.3.1. Nominal morphologyKet has developed a system of postposed case markers that resembles the casesystems of other Siberian languages, but the case markers themselves are notborrowed from any known language and likely derive from native Ketmorphemes. The morphological influence of the surrounding languages onYeniseian was much farther reaching, and appears to have been well under wayeven during the time of Common Yeniseian. In this sense, Yeniseian languagesbelong firmly to the broader Inner Eurasian spread zone with its penchant forsuffixal agglutination, despite their stark underlying genetic and typologicaldissimilarity to the other language families of Eurasia. Shared features include anextensive system of postposed bound relational morphemes, which Vajda (2008)has argued are clitics rather than true suffixes. Yeniseian cases and postpositionsare functionally and structurally analogous to the case suffixes and clausal

24subordinating enclitics found in neighboring Turkic and Samoyedic languages(Anderson 2004). In Yeniseian, however, the morphemes in question show signsof having arisen by coalescence. What are usually described as cases in Yeniseianstill pattern phonologically as enclitics rather than true suffixes (Vajda 2008). Thesystem of grammatical enclitics in Yeniseian also shows morphologicalheterogeneity. One set cliticizes directly to the preceding nominal stem. Theseinclude the instrumental, caritive (meaning ‘without’), locative (used only withinanimate-class nouns), and the prosecutive (meaning ‘past’ or through’). Inparticular, the prosecutive is typically present in North Asian case systems(Anderson 2004).(4) Case markers that attach directly to the noun stemmasculine animate feminine animate inanimateclassclassclass‘god’ ‘gods’ ‘daughter’ ‘daughters’ ‘tent’ ‘tents’locative - - - - qus-ka quŋ-kaprosecutive ɛs-bɛs ɛsaŋ-bɛs hun-bɛs hɔnaŋ-bɛs qus-bɛs quŋ-bɛsinstrumental ɛs-as ɛsaŋ-as hun-as hɔnaŋ-as qus-as quŋ-ascaritive ɛs-an ɛsaŋ-an hun-an hɔnaŋ-an qus-an quŋ-anThe other set requires an augment in the form of a possessive morpheme asconnector, analogous to the way possessive noun phrases are constructed. Notethat the possessive morpheme is a clitic that tends to encliticize to the precedingword whenever one is available:(5) Possessive noun phraseshun=d qu’s hɯp=da qu’s dɯlgat=na qu’sdaughter=POSS.FEM tent son=POSS.FEM tent children=POSS.ANIM.PL tent‘daughter’s tent’ ‘son’s tent’ ‘children’s tent

25If there is no preceding word to serve as host, the possessive formantprocliticizes to the possessum noun: da=qu’s ‘her tent’.As in possessive phrases, these case-marker augments reflect class and numberdistinctions of the preceding (possessor) noun: da (masculine class singular), na(animate class plural), di (feminine class singular or inanimate class singular andplural). Three Ket cases require a possessive augment 4 :(6) Case markers that require a possessive augmentMASCULINE ANIMATE CLASS FEMININE ANIMATE CLASS INANIMATE CLASS‘god’ ‘gods’ ‘daughter’ ‘daughters’ ‘tent’ ‘tents’ablative ɛs-da-ŋal ɛsaŋ-na-ŋal hun-di-ŋal hɔnaŋ-na-ŋal qus-di-ŋal quŋ-di-ŋaldative ɛs-da-ŋa ɛsaŋ-na-ŋa hun-di-ŋa hɔnaŋ-na-ŋa qus-di-Na quŋ-di-ŋaadessive ɛs-da-ŋta ɛsaŋ-na-ŋta hun-di-ŋta hɔnaŋ-na-ŋta qus-di-Nta quŋ-di-ŋtaPostpositions concatenate with case markers to form long agglutinative stringsthat prosodically represent single words, with a stress on the first syllable:(7) Suffix-like concatenations of relational enclitics in Ketdɛŋ-na-hɯt-ka hɯp-da-ʌʌt-di-ŋa quŋ-d-inbal-di-ŋalpeople-PL-under-LOC son-PL-M-on-N-DAT tents-N-between-N-ABL‘located under the people’ ‘onto the son’ ‘from between the tents’Etymologically, many Ket postpositions are obvious adaptations of body partnouns or other noun roots: -hɯt ‘under’ < hɯ̄j ‘belly’; -ʌʌt ‘on the surface’ < ʌʁat‘back’; -inbal ‘between’ < inbal ‘gap, space between objects’. The resultingconcatenations superficially resemble the strings of suffixes in the neighboringagglutinating Turkic and Samoyedic languages.4 A fourth possessive-augmented case, called “benefactive”, appears in past grammars of Ket (cf.Vajda 2004): da-ta ‘for him’, di-ta ‘for her’, etc. Recent fieldwork has shown that the“benefactive” is simply a truncated pronunciation of the adessive forms by some speakers: da-ŋta‘for him’, di-ŋta ‘for her’, etc.

266.3.2. Finite verb morphologyThe most striking morphological feature of modern Ket is its rigid series of verbprefix slots, which stand out starkly against the exclusively suffixing inflectionalmorphology of other verb systems in western and south Siberia. Modern Ket finiteverbs conform to a morphological model consisting of eight prefix positions, anoriginal root or base position (P0), and a single suffix position (P-1):(8) Generalized model of the Modern Ket finite verbP8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 P0 P-1subject left base subject thematic tense/ 3p- tense/ subjectbase animateperson (serves as or consonant mood inanimatemoodor (original subjectbasic stem inmost verbs)object (originallyshape ortrajectoryprefix)or 3planimatesubj orobj.subj.or obj.object verb rootposition)pluralTwo features of modern Ket verb morphology are extremely unusualtypologically. First, the configuration of subject/object markers is not determinedby an overall grammatical rule, so that agreement morphemes appear in different,and largely unpredictable combinations of the following positions: P8, P6, P4, P3,P1 and P-1. The resultant combinations form two productive transitivesubject/object configurations, and five productive intransitive subjectconfigurations (Vajda 2004). Which configuration a given verb requires isdetermined by idiosyncratic etymological factors rather than general semanticprinciples and must be listed as a feature of the verb’s lexical entry. Second, theverb’s primary lexical element – its semantic head – occupies either P7 near thebeginning of the verb, or P0, near the end, depending on the stem in question.The intervening affixes thus appear as prefixes in some verbs but as suffixes inothers.The oldest verbs are invariably root-final, with the semantic head in P0.

27(9) Examples of archaic root-final verbs with prefixesdurɔq ‘he flies’ du 8 -doq 0 [3M.SBJ 8 -fly 0 ]dibbɛt ‘I make it’ di 8 -b 3 -bet 0 [1SG.SBJ 8 -3N.OBJ 3 -make 0 ]dbiltaŋ ‘he dragged it’ du 8 -b 3 -il 2 -taŋ 0 [3M.SBJ 8 -3N.OBJ 3 -PAST 2 -drag 0 ]However, all productive patterns of Ket verb-stem formation require a clearlyidentifiable lexical element in P7, rendering the original prefixes in the rest of thestring as suffixes. Verbs with a clearly prefixing structure, such as those in (9)above, generally belong to the oldest and most basic layers of the language andare perhaps the equivalent of strong verbs in the Germanic verbal lexicon. Thesemantic interaction between the morphemes in the newer P7 slot and theoriginal verb root slot in P0 is of two distinct types. The first involves genuineincorporation of a noun or adjective form in P7, with P0 still containing arecognizable verb root of some sort, as exemplified in (10). Note that the P8subject agreement marker in verbs containing a P7 morpheme is a clitic thatnormally attaches to the preceding word, so that the P7 morpheme regularlystands in phonological verb initial position.(10) Example of incorporation of (a) object noun or (b) instrument nouna. (t)saĺarɔp ‘he smokes’du 8 -sal 7 -a 4 -dop 03M.SBJ 8 -tobacco 7 -PRES 4 -injest 0b. (d)donbaγatɛt ‘he stabs me’du 8 -do’n 7 -ba 6 -k 5 -a 4 -tet 03M.SBJ 8 -knife 7 -1SG.OBJ 6 -TH 5 -PRES 4 -hit 0Only about seven P0 verb roots allow object or theme incorporation in P7, andonly two P0 roots allow instrument noun incorporation. Incorporating verbsappear to be a new variation on an old model that arose as part of a generaltypological shift toward root-initial word forms.

28(11) Incorporating model of modern Ket verb formationP8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 P0 P-1subject incorporatedsubject thematic tense/ inanim. tense/ subjectverb anim.(clitic)nounorobjectconsonant mood or3 rd personanimatesbj or objsubjectorobjectmoodor rootobjectsubjectpluralIn the remaining productive patterns of Ket verb stem formation, the left base(P7) contains an infinitive form that serves as the verb’s semantic peak, while theoriginal base (P0) contains an eroded verb root denoting generalized lexicalaspect or voice categories such as ‘single action transitive’ or ‘beginning of action’.(12) Examples of infinitive-initial verb formsdauśqibit‘she thaws it (once)’da 8 -us 7 -q 5 -b 3 -it 03F.SBJ 8 -thaw 7 -CAUS 5 -3N.OBJ 3 -MOM.TRANS 0dauśqabda ‘she thaws it (repeatedly)’da 8 -us 7 -q 5 -a 4 -b 3 -da 03F.SBJ 8 -thaw 7 -CAUS 5 -PRES 4 -3N.OBJ 3 -ITER.TRANS 0Note that the remaining position classes serve the same functions as inprefixing, root-final verb models, except that these slots serve as suffixes in verbswith an infinitive in P7.

29(13) Infinitive-initial pattern of modern Ket verb formationP8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 P0 P-1subject infinitive sub-ject thematictense/ inanim. tense/ subject eroded verb anim.(clitic) as semantic ormood or subject or mood or root as affix subjectpeak object consonant3 p animatesbj or objobjectobject of aspect ortransitivitypluralThe realignment of the phonological verb’s semantic head to the extreme leftedge served to accommodate the original Yeniseian prefixing structure to thepattern of suffixal agglutination prevalent in all of the neighboring languages. Yetno actual affixes were borrowed in this process. Nor did any change occur in theorder or function of the original prefix slots, which instead simply took on theappearance of suffixes. There are only two types of morphemes in the modernKet verb system that can be identified as having been borrowed. These are a fewRussian infinitive forms along with several loan nouns that can be incorporated asinstrument or object.(14) Ket verb forms containing loanwords in P7: (a) infinitive, (b) instrumentnouna. (d)lečitbɔγavɛt ‘he cures me’du 8 -lecǐt 7 -bo 6 -k 5 -a 4 -bet 03M.SBJ 8 -cure 7 -1SG.OBJ 6 -TH 5 -PRES 4 -VERBALIZER 0b. (t)kɛrasinatakit ‘he rubs him (a dog) with kerosene (precaution against fleas)’du 8 -kerasin 7 -a 6 -t 5 -a 4 -kit 03M.SBJ 8 -kerosene 7 -3M.OBJ 6 -TH 5 -PRES 4 -rub 0In summary, it appears that during the centuries of development of Ket beforethe arrival of the Russians in Siberia, certain areally dissonant features ofYeniseian morphology gradually underwent typological accommodation toSamoyedic and Turkic languages. This involved the innovation of root-initial verbforms and the development of a system of case markers. It also affected the

30phonemic prosody, which became eroded in longer, suffixal-agglutinative wordforms. Modern Ket, the best documented Yeniseian language, provides the bestavailable illustration of how these traits came to mimic the prevailingmorphological and phonological patterns of the surrounding languages withoutactually being replaced. The resulting uniqueness of Modern Ket morphology is inno small measure a product of this intricate process of structural hybridization.7. ConclusionKet as well as its extinct relatives appear to be languages that are rather resistantto outright borrowing of words and morphemes. The most significant exceptionscame during the initial phase of language shift as speakers became bilingual in asuperstrate language. In the case of 20th century Ket and Yugh, the superstratewas Russian, while South Siberian Turkic dialects appear to have played the samerole in the final decades of Kott, Assan, Arin and Pumpokol. These late loans tendto be only partly integrated to the phonologies of their recipient languages. Still,despite today’s rapid pace of language loss the Ket continue to be resistant tooutright borrowing. Metaphoric neologisms made on the basis of native Ketmorphemes (e.g., bɔγul ‘fire water’, and the like) remain the preferred method ofconcept naming even in the closing years of Ket as a viable form ofcommunication.Outright grammatical borrowing is likewise the exception rather than the rule.While there are a small number of function words that represent recent loansfrom Russian, not a single bound morpheme in Ket can be identified as borrowedfrom another language. Much more striking is the process of “typologicalaccommodation” that has gradually, over the centuries, shifted the morphologicalprofile of Ket from a prefixing language to one that places the lexeme’s semantichead word-initially. This process, together with the seemingly contradictoryfeature of resistance against borrowing actual morphemes and lexemes, isprobably connected with the traditional social situation in which Ket-speakinggroups lived. Selective bilingualism with outsiders, along with induction ofmarriage partners from other groups, filtered out most outright borrowing, yet

31gradually led to a sort of morphosyntactic calquing by design that rendered Ketmorphology into a unique hybrid of traditional prefixing structures expressedroot-initially. Judging from certain basic commonalities in Yeniseian case markersand verb stem patterns, typological accommodation must have begun in CommonYeniseian, though it has played itself out differently in each of the daughterlanguages.Abbreviations used in the verb morpheme glossesANIMFITERMMOMNOBJPLSGSBJTHTRANSanimate classfemininemultiple actionmasculinesingle actionneuter (=inanimate) classobject agreement affixpluralsingularsubject agreementthematic consonanttransitiveReferencesAlekseenko, E. A. 1967. Kety: ètnograficheskie očerki [The Ket: ethnographic studies].Leningrad: Nauka.Anderson, Gregory 2003. “Yeniseic languages in Siberian areal perspective”.Sprach-typologie und Universalienforschung 56.1/2: 12-39.Anderson, Gregory 2004. “The languages of Central Siberia”. Languages andprehistory of Central Siberia, ed. by Edward J. Vajda. Amsterdam; Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Pp. 1-119.

32Castrén, M. A. 1858. Versuch einer jenissej-ostjakischen und kottischen Sprachlehre,Sankt-Peterburg: Imperatorskaja Akademija Nauk.Donner, Kai. 1955. Ketica: Materialien aus dem Ketischen oder Jenisseiostjakischen.Helsinki: Finno-Ugric Society.Dolgix, B. O. 1960. Rodovoj i plemennoj sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII veke [The clanand tribal composition of Siberian peoples in the 17th century]. Moscow: Akademijanauk.Dul’zon, A. P. 1961. “Slovarnye materialy XVIII v. po ketskim narečijam [18thcentury dictionary materials on Ket and related dialects]”. Uc&enye zapiskiTomskogo gos. pedagogičeskogo instituta 19:2.152-89. Tomsk: TGPI.Georg, Stefan. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Ket. Part I: introduction, phonologyand morphology. Folkestone, Kent: Global Oriental.Kotorova, E. G., editor-in-chief. (2009+). Bol’šoj ketsko-russkij slovar’[Comprehensive Ket-Russian dictionary]. Tomsk.Krejnovič E. A. 1969. “Medvežij prazdnik u ketov [The Bear Festival among theKet]”. Ketskij sbornik: mifologija, ètnografija, teksty. Moskva: Nauka. Pp. 6-112.Krivonogov, V. P. 1998. Kety na poroge III tysjac&eletija [The Ket on the thresholdof the 3rd millennium]. Krasnoyarsk: RIO KGPU.Krivonogov, V. P. 2003. Kety: desjat’ let spustja [The Ket: ten years later].Krasnoyarsk: RIO KGPU.Ross, Malcom. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-WestMelanesia. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance, eds. A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 134–166.Vajda, Edward J. 2001. Yeniseian peoples and languages: a history of Yeniseianstudies with an annotated bibliography and a source guide. Curzon Press: Surrey,England.Vajda, Edward J. 2004. Ket. Munich: Lincom Europa.Vajda, Edward J. 2008. “Head-negating enclitics in Ket”. Subordination andcoordination strategies in the languages of Eurasia, ed. by Edward J. Vajda.(Current issues in linguistic theory, 300). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. Pp. 177-199.Vajda, Edward J. 2009+. “Yeniseic substrates and typological accommodation incentral Siberia”. The languages of hunter-gatherers: global and historical

33perspectives, ed. by Tom Güldemann, Patrick McConvell & Richard A. Rhodes.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vajda, Edward & Heinrich Werner 2009+. Etymological dictionary of the Yeniseiclanguages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Verner, G.K [=Heinrich Werner]. 1990. Kottskij jazyk [The Kott language]. Rostovna-Donu:Rostov University.Verner, G. K. 1993. Slovar’ ketsko-russkij/russko-ketskij s&kol’nyj slovar’ [Ket-Russian/Russian-Ket dictionary]. Leningrad: Proshves&c&enie.Werner, Heinrich. 2003. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen.Wiesbaden Harrassowitz.Werner, Heinrich. 2005. Die Jenissej-Sprachen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.Werner, Heinrich. 2006. Die Welt der Jenissejer im Lichte des Wortschatzes: zurRekonstruktion der jenissejischen Protokultur. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Xelimskij, E. A. 1982. “Keto-Uralica”. Ketskij sbornik: antropologija, ètnografija,mifologija, lingvistika, ed. by E. A. Alekseenko et al. Leningrad: Nauka. Pp. 238-251.Xelimskij, E. A. 1986. “Arxivnye materialy XVII veka po enisejskim jazykam [18thcentury archival materials on Yeniseic languages]”. Paleoaziatskie jazyki, ed. byP. Ja Skorik. Leningrad: Nauka. Pp. 179-213.