language,—a stage in which no true pronouns (i.e. representatives of the nouns) were developed. But it may also be that Bushman, like many other languages descended from those in which the nouns were originally divided on the basis of this system of representing a noun by one of its parts, has lost this characteristic entirely. … It may have descended from a language possessing a rich system of concords based upon the representation of each noun by one of its parts. Such a system may have dwindled away (a process of which we have so many examples), and all traces of its existence may thus have disappeared. This is possible, but primá facie not so probable as the reverse proposition, that the Bushman language belongs to a lower stage of development, in which neither true pronouns, nor grammatical classes (or genders) of nouns, had any existence.
“The only instances which I have met with of anything like forms of concord in Bushman are the adjectives small and large, which, in this language, have different forms for the singular and plural respectively. Thus ǀeri is the singular of the adjective indicating small, and ǀĕn the plural; ǂuiya is the singular of the word for large, and ǂuita the plural; ǁkuken e ǃoai gan ǀeri one veldschoen is small, ǁkuǁku e ǃu gan ǀĕn the two veldschoens are small, ǁkuka gan ǁu ǂuiya the veldschoen is large, ǁkuǁku e ǃu gan ǁu ǂuita the two veldschoens are large, ǂnūî yan ǂuiya the seacow is large, ǂnūî e ǂoaya yan ǁu ǂuita the many seacows are large. … We should lay more stress upon this grammatical peculiarity, and conclude that we could discern in it the remnant of a former system of concords, if it were not that, as yet, it has only been observed in the sentences taken down from the mouth of one informant, who was not a pure Bushman. Yet it is difficult to see how he could have introduced this grammatical feature into the language, as the Hottentot construction is by no means identical in this instance.[1]
“Many nouns in Bushman vary in their terminations according to their position or use. Thus veldschoen may be ǁkuki, ǁkuka, or ǁkuken. Our knowledge of the language is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable us to discern the exact value of these endings; but it does not appear that they have anything to do with the concord, or even clearly with the distinction of singular and plural. …
- ↑ At a later date Dr. Bleek ascertained that other adjectives referring to size, as short, long, etc., have in the plural a form different from the singular. All other adjectives have the same form in both numbers.
