As the Bushman nouns do not appear to possess any representative parts, the singular and plural cannot, of course, be distinguished by the mutual correspondence of such parts. The mode in which singular and plural are distinguished from each other in the Bushman language is far more primitive, viz. by reduplication of the first portion of each noun. Thus ǀnũm is beard, and ǀnũǀnũm beards, ǁnũ ear, ǁnũǁnũntu ears, ǁnõa foot, ǁnõaǁnõa feet, tű mouth, tűtű mouths, ǁkun wing, ǁkoǁkun wings, ku arm, kukun arms, ǂkoa leg, ǂkoaǂkoaken legs. In some of the latter nouns it appears as if the ending n, or en, or ken were, besides the reduplication, a distinguishing mark of the plural; but as this ending sometimes certainly also occurs in the singular, it would be rash to consider it as the indicator of the plural. The reduplication, on the contrary, has as yet only been observed in the plural of nouns. This particular employment of the process of reduplication for the purpose of forming plurals is, as far as I am aware, peculiar to the Bushman language. …
“Next to the plural, the feature as yet most clearly perceived with regard to Bushman nouns is the formation of the genitive. … In Bushman the genitive particle is suffixed to the noun, but as there is no sort of concord by which the noun in the genitive can be referred by a representative element to the noun which it defines, the noun in the genitive can only precede the other noun. The suffixed genitive particle is perfectly different in Bushman and Hottentot, the Bushman particle being ka, ga, ya, or a; e.g. ǁkā is lion, and ǁkā ga ān lion's flesh, sa ga ān eland's flesh, ǁkā ga ǃnu lion's foot, i.e. lion's traces. This Bushman genitive particle may, like the corresponding one in Hottentot, be also totally omitted. In fact, the cases of such omission appear to be more frequent than those in which the genitive particle is employed, e.g. ǁkā ǂkui lion tail, koro ǂkui jackal tail, toï ǂkui ostrich tail. The difference in the form of the suffixed genitive particle in Hottentot and Bushman is as significant as the difference in the use of the prefixed genitive particles of in English and de in French. Although the former is identical in meaning with the French particle, the difference in its form shows at what a distance English grammar stands, genealogically speaking, from that of the Romance languages.
“One other point of great and conclusive dissimilarity between Bushman and other South African languages is discernible in the forms of the so-called personal pronouns. They are, as far as we
