Hubbry Logo
Khwe languageKhwe languageMain
Open search
Khwe language
Community hub
Khwe language
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Khwe language
Khwe language
Khwe language
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Khwe
Kxoe
Native toNamibia, Angola, Botswana, South Africa, Zambia
RegionNorthwest District in Botswana, Khwai River, Mababe
Native speakers
8,000 (2011)[1]
(7,000 Khwe and 1,000 ǁAni)
Khoe–Kwadi
  • Khoe
    • Kalahari (Tshu–Khwe)
      • Northwest
        • Khwe
Language codes
ISO 639-3Either:
xuu – Khwe
hnh – ǁAni (Handa)
Glottologkxoe1242
ELP
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.

Khwe /ˈkweɪ/ KWAY (also rendered Kxoe, Khoe /ˈkɔɪ/ KOY) is a dialect continuum of the Khoe branch of the Khoe-Kwadi family of Namibia, Angola, Botswana, South Africa, and parts of Zambia, with some 8,000 speakers.[1]

Classification

[edit]

Khwe is a member of the Khoe branch of the larger Khoe-Kwadi language family.

In 2000, the meeting of the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in South Africa (WIMSA) produced the Penduka Declaration on the Standardisation of Ju and Khoe Languages,[2] which recommends Khwe be classified as part of the Central Khoe-San family, a cluster language comprising Khwe, ǁAni and Buga.[3]

Khwe is the preferred spelling as recommended by the Penduka Declaration,[2] but the language is also referred to as Kxoe, Khoe-dam and Khwedam. Barakwena, Barakwengo and Mbarakwena refer to speakers of the language and are considered pejorative.[4]

Other names and spellings of ǁAni include ǀ᪶Anda, Gǀanda, Handá, Gani and Tanne with various combinations of -kwe/khwe/khoe and -dam.

History

[edit]

The Khwe-speaking population has resided around the "bush" in areas of sub-Saharan Africa for several thousand years.[5] Testimonies from living Khwe speakers note that their ancestors have come from the Tsodilo Hills, in the Okavango Delta, where they primarily used hunter-gatherer techniques for subsistence.[5] These testimonies also indicate that living Khwe speakers feel as though they are land-less, and feel as though the governments of Botswana and Namibia have taken their land and rights to it.[5]

Until the 1970s, the Khwe speaking population lived in areas that were inaccessible to most Westerners in remote parts of Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Botswana, and South Africa.[5] Since then, livelihoods have shifted from primarily from hunter-gatherer to more Westernized practices.[6] The first Bantu-speaking education that Khwe speakers received was in 1970 at a settlement in Mùtcʼiku, a settlement proximate the Okavango River.[6]

Some argue that this put the language in a state of decline, as younger populations learned Bantu languages, such as Tswana. Khwe is learned locally as a second language in Namibia, but the language is being lost in Botswana as speakers shift to Tswana.[6] It is also argued that this has led to a semantic broadening in meaning of words in the Khwe language. For example, "to write", ǁgàràá, was formerly used to describe an "activity the community members perform during healing ceremonies".[5] The semantic broadening of word meanings has also permeated other parts of Khwe-speaking culture, such as food, animals, and other forms of naming that some argue have introduced nonconformity. Noting this, the original meanings of these words is still understood and used during Khwe cultural practices.[6]

While Khwe-speakers were in minimal contact with the outsiders until 1970, there was limited interaction between the Khwe and missionaries in early and mid-twentieth centuries.[6] The missionaries, for the most part, failed to convert the Khwe-speaking population.[6] The introduction to missionaries, however, introduced Western culture and languages, in addition to Bantu languages.[6]

Despite the influence of Bantu languages in Khwe speakers education, historically, Khwe, and other Khoisan languages, have had linguistic influences on Bantu languages.[7] The Bantu language speakers of the Okavango and Zambezi regions migrated to the area during the Bantu Migration, and came in contact with the native Khoe speakers in the area.[7] Several Bantu languages of this area adapted the clicks of the Khoe languages and integrated them into their phonology, in a reduced manner through paralexification.[7] Some scholars argue that the "contact-induced" changes in Bantu languages have contributed to the general language shift away from Khoe languages, such as Khwe, to Bantu languages because of the increased familiarity in phonology.[7]

Distribution

[edit]

The Khoe mainly occupy the Okavango Delta of Botswana.[3] Specifically, Khwe speakers primarily live in the western Caprivi area in Namibia, however, the entirety of the Khoe population occupies a much larger geography. Khwe speakers in the western Caprivi are somewhat distant, lexically, from other similar Khoe languages, such as Damara. According to a dialect survey conducted by the University of Namibia's Department of African Languages, it was revealed that proto-Damara most likely migrated through the western Caprivi area before the Khwe settled the area, as there is little lexical overlap.[8]

The Khwe speakers' distribution in the greater Kavango-Zambezi region influenced clicks in Khoisan languages, some argue.[7] The Khwe, and other Khoe language speaking peoples, resided in greater Southern Africa, prior to the great Bantu Migration, which occurred about 5,000 years ago. In this migration, the Bantu speaking population of West and Central Africa, around the Nigeria-Cameroon borderlands, migrated to Southern Africa, and in this process, encountered the native Khwe population.[7] While the Khwe migrated into the Caprivi and greater Kavango-Zambezi region after the Damara, they were certainly there 5,000 years ago when Bantu speakers migrated to the area, and through their linguistic and cultural exchanges, both languages were fundamentally altered.[7] The morphology, syntax, and phonology sections on this page further discuss the changes occurred, and how it has influenced contemporary Khwe.

Today, an estimated 3,700 Khwe speakers live in Namibia, with the vast majority residing in the western region of the Zambezi Region.[9] The largest known Khwe settlements are Mutc'iku, located adjacent to the Okavango River, and Gudigoa in Botswana.[1]

Noting this, there have been major forced migrations from government pressures that have influenced the contemporary distribution of Khwe speakers.[10] In 1990, 4,000 Xhu- and Khwe-speaking people,[11] including former members of the 31 Battalion (SWATF) who fought under the South African Defence Force in the Namibian War, were settled in a tent town in Schmidtsdrift, South Africa. In 2003, the majority of this community relocated to Platfontein, outside Kimberley, following the Schmidtsdrift Community Land Claim.[10]

Phonology

[edit]

Khwe has 70 phonemic consonants, including 36 clicks, as well as 25 vowel phonemes, including diphthongs and nasalised vowels. Khwe's tone system has been analysed as containing 9 syllabic tones (3 register and 6 contour),[12] although more recent proposed analyses identify only 3 lexical tones, high, mid and low, with the mora as the basic unit of phonological structure.[13] Tone sandhi processes are common in Khwe and related languages.[14]

Vowels

[edit]
Khwe vowels
Front Central Back
Close i u
Close-mid e o
Open-mid ɛ
Open a
Diphthongs
Close ui ue uɛ ua
Close-mid ei eu
oe oɛ oa
Open ae ao
  • /o/ is realized as [o] when lengthened, but is realized as [ɔ] if it is pronounced short.
  • Three nasal vowels are recognized as /ã ĩ ũ/. A nasal /õ/ also exists, but only in diphthongs as /õã/.
  • Nasal diphthongs include /ãĩ, ũĩ, ãũ, õã/.
  • /oɛ/ and /uɛ/ are free in variation with /oe/ and /ue/, but only dependent upon speakers.

Consonants

[edit]
Khwe pulmonic consonants
Labial Alveolar Post-
alveolar 		Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
plain pal.
Nasal m n ɲ ŋ
Plosive voiceless p t k kʲ q ʔ
aspirated pʰ tʰ kʰ kʰʲ
ejective tʼ
voiced b d ɡ ɡʲ
prenasal ᵐb ⁿd ᵑɡ
Affricate voiceless t͡ʃ
voiced d͡ʒ
velar tx t͡ʃx
ejective t͡ʃʼ kxʼ
Fricative voiceless f (s) ʃ (ç) x h
voiced v
Trill r
Approximant (l) j w
  • /ʃ/ is realized as [ç] only in Buma-Khwe, but as [s] in ǁXo-Khwe and Buga-Khwe, and as [ʃ] in ǁXom-Khwe
  • /l/ is only found in borrowings.

Click consonants

[edit]

Khoe click inventories generally combine four anterior constrictions types with nine to eleven anterior constrictions. The exact size of the click inventory in Khwe is unclear. Köhler established an inventory of 36 click phonemes, from combinations of four influxes /ǀ ǂ ǃ ǁ/, and nine effluxes (only five on the alveolar), as well as a borrowed voiced alveolar click, /ǃᶢ/. Khwe is the only language to have a pre-nasalized voiced click.[13][15]

Khwe clicks
Dental Alveolar Palatal Lateral
Voiceless ǀᵏ ǃᵏ ǂᵏ ǁᵏ
Glottalized ǀˀ ǃˀ ǂˀ ǁˀ
Voiced ǀᶢ ǃᶢ ǂᶢ ǁᶢ
Aspirated ǀᵏʰ ǃᵏʰ ǂᵏʰ ǁᵏʰ
Nasal ᵑǀ ᵑǃ ᵑǂ ᵑǁ
Voiced nasal ᵑǀᶢ ᵑǃᶢ ᵑǂᶢ ᵑǁᶢ
Uvular stop ǀq ǃq ǂq ǁq
Fricative ǀᵏˣ ǃᵏˣ ǂᵏˣ ǁᵏˣ
Affricate ejective ǀᵏˣʼ ǃᵏˣʼ ǂᵏˣʼ ǁᵏˣʼ

Tones

[edit]

There are three tones in Khwe: high /V́/, mid /V̄/, low /V̀/. Long vowels and diphthongs have eight tones (missing only *mid–low as a combination).

Morphology

[edit]

Khwe is a suffixing language, and thus has a rich inventory of head-marking suffixes on nouns and verbs. Verbs take tense-aspect-mood suffixes (TAMs), marking for causative, applicative, comitative, locative, passive, reflexive and reciprocal.[16] Nouns are marked with person-gender-number suffixes (PGNs). Gender division in Khwe is based on sex, and is expressed by PGNs, with gender being marked even in first-person dual and plural.

Negation in Khwe is indicated with the clause-final negative particle vé, which can be used to indicate non-occurrence of an event, non-equation between entities, and the non-possession of an entity.[13] The post-verbal particle tí can also be used, although its application is limited to prohibitive functions, such as negative imperatives and the negative hortative and jussive constructions, in which vé can also be used.[13]

Syntax

[edit]

Generally, Khoisan languages have an SV constituent order. Central Khoisan languages have a dominant AOV constituent order, including Khwe, though OAV order is used more frequently in casual conversation and storytelling.[17]

Khwe lacks a separate class of adjectives. Pronouns, nouns and verbs, especially state verbs, can be used attributively. Khwe has a modifier-head order,[17] in which manner adverbs precede the verb, and adjectives and possessors attributes precede the noun.

In Khwe, subjects of intransitive verbs, subjects and direct objects of transitive verbs, and one of the objects of ditransitive verbs are commonly omitted when the participants are known to the speakers through inner- or extra-linguistic context.[18]

Khwe has two multiverbal constructions that may denote a series of closely connected events: serial verb constructions (SVC) and converb constructions.[18] An SVC expresses a complex event composed by two or more single events that happen at the same time, and a converb construction marks the immediate succession of two or more events.

SVCs in Khwe consist of two or more verbs forming a single intonation unit, with only the last verb being marked for TAM. The preceding verbs obligatorily take the active voice suffix. Converb constructions may consist of two or more verbs, only one of which takes the TAM marking.

Vocabulary

[edit]

In opposition to the postulated linguistic universal regarding the primacy of the visual domain in the hierarchy of the verbs of perception,[19] Khwe's most widely applied verb of perception is ǁám̀, 'taste, smell, touch'.[14] Khwe has three verbs of perception, the other two being mṹũ 'see', and kóḿ 'hear', but ǁám̀, which is semantically rooted in oral perception, is used to convey holistic modes of sensory perception.[14]

The Khwe term xǀóa functions both as a verb 'to be little, few, some' and as an alternative way of expressing the quantity 'three'. This term is unique in its ambiguity among numeral terms used by African hunter-gatherer subsistence communities.[20]

Khwe has a large number of loan words from Afrikaans.[18]

Orthography

[edit]

In 1957, Oswin Köhler, founder of the Institut für Afrikanistik at the University of Cologne, designed an orthography of Khwe in which he published three volumes of texts and grammatical sketches, based on observations of language and culture made over 30 years of visits to Namibia.[21] As Köhler's orthography was designed for academic purposes, his volumes were published in German and French, and therefore inaccessible to the Khwe themselves. Köhler never made an attempt to teach literacy to members of the community.

Attempts to teach the Khwe orthography to first language speakers were not made until 1996, by scholars of the institute who took up Köhler's work. At the request and with the consultation of the Khwe, the orthography was revised and simplified by Matthias Brenzinger and Mathias Schladt between 1996 and 1997.[22]

A collection of Khwe folktales was published in 1999 by Christa Kilian-Hatz and David Naude, using the revised orthography along with interlinear and free translations.[23] Kilian-Hatz also published a dictionary of Khwe,[24] although this is written in the linguistic orthography which uses symbols from the International Phonetic Alphabet in place of the Latin script use for the applied orthography.

The revised orthography has not been granted official status in Namibia. The Khwe language is not taught as a subject or used as a language of instruction in formal education, and few literacy materials exist.[21]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Khwe language

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Khwe, also rendered as Kxoe or Khoe, is a belonging to the Khoe branch of the , spoken by the Khwe people across .

The features a complex system of click consonants typical of , alongside tonal distinctions and verb compounding, with dialects exhibiting phonological and lexical variation but remaining mutually intelligible to a degree. Khwe speakers historically inhabited regions spanning southeastern , western , the Namibian , Botswana's , and the northern Central Kalahari, though contemporary communities are concentrated in Namibia's western Caprivi and , with smaller groups in following post-war relocations. As a primarily oral without standardized writing, Khwe faces pressures from dominant lingua francas like and English, contributing to its endangered status amid ongoing documentation efforts by linguists.

Classification and Dialects

Genealogical Position

Khwe belongs to the Kalahari Khoe subgroup of the Khoe branch within the Khoe-Kwadi language family, comprising the of and the extinct Kwadi language of . This affiliation is supported by comparative reconstruction of shared lexical roots and morphological innovations, including person-gender-number marking systems traceable to a Proto-Khoe-Kwadi stage. Specifically, Khwe forms a dialect cluster in the Western Kalahari Khoe division, as established through systematic analysis of phonological, lexical, and grammatical correspondences among related varieties. The Khoe-Kwadi family stands as a distinct genetic unit, isolated from other African language phyla such as Niger-Congo, with no compelling evidence for deeper affiliations based on regular sound changes or core vocabulary innovations. Earlier proposals for a "Khoisan" super-family encompassing Khoe-Kwadi alongside Tuu and Kx'a languages relied on typological traits like click consonants rather than demonstrable genetic links, a view undermined by the absence of shared non-areal innovations and the areal diffusion of clicks via contact. Comparative studies, including pronominal reconstructions, affirm Khoe-Kwadi's internal coherence while rejecting broader genetic ties rooted in unsubstantiated linguistic unity narratives.

Dialect Continuum and Variation

Khwe forms a across southeastern , the Caprivi region of , and northern , with linguistic traits transitioning gradually from east to west along the Okavango and Kwando river systems. This configuration fosters high among adjacent speech communities, diminishing progressively with geographic separation, as mutual comprehension remains fairly robust overall but varies by exposure and proximity. Empirical evaluations, including speakers' self-assessments, prioritize such interactional over arbitrary thresholds to affirm dialectal status rather than separate languages. Comparative fieldwork reveals phonological, tonological, and lexical divergences among principal varieties, including ||Xom, Buga, and ||Ani, without abrupt isoglosses defining discrete subgroups. ||Xom and Buga demonstrate close affinity and limited internal variation, likely driven by areal convergence in shared border zones of and , as shown by aligned phonological inventories and minimal lexical mismatches in elicited data. Conversely, ||Ani in diverges more markedly through phonological isoglosses—such as distinct click accompaniments and tonal realizations—and lexical innovations, distinguishing it via both acoustic analysis and native speaker perceptions of otherness. These patterns, documented in 2019 comparative studies drawing on archival and recent field recordings from and , underscore a chain-like structure where innovations spread contiguously, preserving overall coherence despite localized shifts. Speaker-centered metrics, including reported comprehension in cross-variety conversations, reinforce the continuum's integrity, countering tendencies to over-fragment based solely on structural metrics.

Historical Development

Pre-Colonial Origins

The Khwe language, belonging to the Western Kalahari branch of the Khoe-Kwadi family, originated in the through processes of linguistic divergence estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, contemporaneous with the initial phases of into . This timeline correlates with archaeological evidence of sheep introduction around 2,000 BP at sites like Toteng, indicating that proto-Khoe speakers, including Khwe ancestors, integrated small-stock with in response to ecological constraints and competitive pressures from incoming Bantu agro-pastoralists, rather than prolonged isolation. The arid Kalahari , characterized by seasonal and reliance on geophytes and , shaped these early economies, fostering adaptive subsistence strategies over speculative long-distance migrations. Reconstructed proto-Khoe lexicon provides direct evidence of these adaptations, featuring terms for tubers such as geophytes (e.g., reconstructed roots for edible bulbs suited to dry soils) and vocabulary for hunting game, underscoring a forager-oriented lifestyle in semi-arid environments where plant and animal resources demanded specialized knowledge for survival. These lexical elements, derived from comparative analysis across Khoe dialects, reflect causal ties between linguistic retention and ecological niches, with Bantu pressures likely accelerating divergence by confining groups to marginal Kalahari habitats. Proto-Khoe pronominal and systems further illustrate adaptive innovations, with complex person-gender-number marking and detailed terminologies enabling nuanced among mobile forager-pastoralists, promoting cooperative resource sharing in resource-variable settings without implying archaic primitiveness. This structural complexity, reconstructible to the proto-level, supported group cohesion amid demographic stresses from Bantu incursions, highlighting linguistic evolution driven by practical necessities rather than isolationist stasis.

Colonial and Post-Colonial Impacts

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European colonization in the Caprivi Strip—then under German South West Africa administration—imposed land dispossession and restrictions on traditional foraging economies among the Khwe, compelling shifts toward sedentary lifestyles and integration into colonial labor systems that favored dominant languages such as Afrikaans. Missionary activities, including early schooling at stations like Andara in the early 1900s, prioritized instruction in European or colonial languages over indigenous ones, eroding intergenerational Khwe transmission as children were immersed in non-native mediums that devalued click-based Khoe dialects. In Angola's Portuguese colonial context, similar assimilation pressures through enforced Portuguese education further marginalized Khwe speakers, fostering code-switching and early language attrition amid forced relocations tied to border conflicts and resource extraction. Post-independence in (1990) and amid Botswana's ongoing policies, national education frameworks continued to prioritize like Oshiwambo or Setswana, with Khwe receiving limited recognition in early grades but facing systemic barriers to monolingual instruction, accelerating shift to majority tongues for . and intermarriage with Bantu groups, compounded by incentives for adopting trade languages in formal sectors, contributed to documented intergenerational loss, as younger Khwe increasingly defaulted to dominant codes in mixed households and wage labor contexts. While pre-1950 estimates suggest broader Khwe usage across Angola- borders supporting networks, post-colonial demographic pressures reduced fluent domains, linking observable vitality decline to these policy-driven assimilations without mitigating community-internal dynamics like .

Modern Documentation and Research

Modern linguistic documentation of Khwe, a Kalahari Khoe , intensified after 1980 through targeted fieldwork in , , and , yielding grammars, dictionaries, and dialect surveys that form the basis of current corpora. Christa Kilian-Hatz's A of Modern Khwe (2008) provides the most comprehensive syntactic and morphological analysis to date, detailing verb-final order, serial verb constructions, and nominal classification via gender markers, based on data from over 200 speakers across dialects. This work builds on earlier efforts but incorporates post-fieldwork refinements, emphasizing empirical elicitation over speculative reconstructions. Complementing it, Christa König and Bernd Heine's contributions in overviews highlight Khwe's areal typological traits, such as extensive click inventories, without assuming genetic unity for the broader "Khoisan" grouping. Recent studies address dialectal variation, with Anne-Maria Fehn's 2019 analysis of phonological and lexical differences across the Khwe cluster revealing systematic shifts in click realization and tone depressor effects, drawn from comparative corpora of elicited and narrative data from 50+ informants. These efforts prioritize verifiable fieldwork, including audio recordings archived in institutional repositories like those affiliated with the Max Planck Institute, where tools such as ELAN facilitate tiered transcriptions of , glossing, and translations. However, gaps persist in longitudinal data on child and intergenerational transmission, limiting insights into vitality and change; most corpora derive from adult fluent speakers, with scant naturalistic child-directed speech documented before 2020. Khoisan research, including on Khwe, has historically overemphasized typological "exoticism" like clicks as proxies for antiquity, often inferring deep-time isolation without integrating genetic evidence showing recent admixture with Bantu and pastoralist groups. Rigorous modern approaches debunk such "mythopoeic" narratives by focusing on areal diffusion—clicks as shared innovations rather than archaic relics—and cross-verifying linguistic data against mtDNA and admixture models, which indicate clicks spread via contact post-2000 BCE rather than denoting pre-Neolithic divergence. Peer-reviewed phonological surveys underscore this shift, treating clicks as functional consonants subject to empirical mapping asymmetries in acquisition and , not emblematic of unilineal antiquity.

Geographic Distribution and Demographics

Current Speaker Locations

The Khwe language is primarily spoken in the western () of , where communities are concentrated around areas such as Divundu and the floodplain, based on field documentation from linguistic surveys. In , speakers inhabit the region, particularly in villages east of the delta like Khwai and Gudigoa, as mapped in dialect variation studies. Southeastern Angola's hosts transborder Khwe groups, including subgroups like the Buma and ||Xom Khwe, in rural settlements near the and borders. A smaller population resides in South Africa's , specifically the Platfontein resettlement community near Kimberley, where Khwe speakers were relocated alongside !Xun groups from and in the early 1990s, comprising part of an estimated 4,000 combined individuals in that area. Marginal presence extends to southwestern , though numbers remain unquantified in recent censuses. Increasing urban migration has dispersed speakers to towns including in Namibia's Kavango Region and Maun in Botswana's North-West District, diluting concentrations in traditional rural enclaves as documented in 2010s ethnographic reports. These patterns reflect the language's transfrontier continuum across the Kavango-Zambezi basin, corroborated by 2019 Pan South African Language Board assessments.

Population Estimates and Vitality

Estimates place the total number of Khwe speakers at around 9,400, distributed mainly across ethnic communities in , , and , with smaller populations in (approximately 1,200) and . This figure reflects data from the , with no comprehensive surveys confirming growth or decline into the 2020s, though intergenerational transmission remains limited. Khwe holds a "definitely endangered" status on the scale, characterized by robust use among older generations but minimal first-language acquisition by children, who increasingly adopt dominant regional languages like Setswana or Oshiwambo in home and community settings. Proficiency is concentrated among fluent elderly speakers, with surveys indicating low rates of active use by youth under 30, exacerbating risks of rapid loss without revitalization efforts. In vitality metrics, Khwe exhibits lower institutional support than more resilient such as Nama, which sustains over 200,000 speakers through partial recognition in education and media in and ; Khwe's trajectory shows steeper decline due to its smaller base and absence from formal schooling, per documentation reports. While classifies it as a stable with L1 use within ethnic groups, this assessment contrasts with UNESCO's rating, highlighting discrepancies in evaluating transmission gaps.

Factors Contributing to Endangerment

The of the Khwe language stems primarily from the institutional dominance of Setswana and English in Botswana's system, administration, and media, which confines Khwe to shrinking informal domains such as home and subsistence activities. Formal schooling, conducted almost exclusively in Setswana from early grades, disrupts intergenerational transmission, as children associate Khwe with limited economic opportunities and fail to develop full proficiency. This policy-driven in Setswana, rooted in post-independence efforts, systematically marginalizes minority languages without compensatory measures for their maintenance. Rapid urbanization and labor migration exacerbate shift, particularly among Khwe speakers relocating to towns like Maun and Khwai in Botswana's , where daily interactions favor Setswana for trade, employment, and . In these settings, younger generations increasingly adopt Setswana as their primary language, with surveys indicating preferential attitudes toward dominant varieties for perceived prestige and practicality. Low socioeconomic status compounds this, as restricts community-led language reinforcement, while remote, hunter-gatherer-derived lifestyles yield to influenced by neighboring Bantu groups like Herero, diluting traditional Khwe lexical domains tied to . Internal dynamics, including exogamous marriages with Setswana or Herero speakers, result in monolingual offspring who prioritize majority languages from infancy. Stigma against click consonants—often stereotyped as markers of backwardness by Bantu-dominant societies—fosters negative self-perceptions among speakers, accelerating voluntary abandonment in favor of non-click languages associated with modernity and mobility. Linguistic attitude studies in related Khoisan contexts reveal youth overwhelmingly viewing Khwe as unsuitable for broader domains, with transmission rates plummeting below 50% in mixed communities by the early 2000s.

Phonological Inventory

Vowel System

The Khwe language possesses a vowel system comprising six phonemic oral vowels, transcribed as /i, e, ɛ, a, o, u/, with realizations varying slightly by dialect such as ǁXom, Buga, and ǁAni. Each oral vowel has a nasalized counterpart, yielding phonemic nasal vowels like /ĩ, ɛ̃, ã, õ, ũ/, though not all dialects maintain full contrasts for every series. This results in a total of approximately 25 vowel phonemes when accounting for diphthongs and length distinctions, distinguishing Khwe from neighboring Bantu languages like those in the Caprivi region, which typically feature only five oral vowels without systematic nasalization. Vowel length provides a phonemic contrast, particularly in stressed or penultimate syllables, where long vowels (marked as /iː, eː/, etc.) differentiate minimal pairs; short vowels predominate in unstressed positions, and length may neutralize in certain prosodic contexts common to . Allophonic variation includes the realization of /o/ as mid-back [ɔ] in short contexts and higher when lengthened, as documented in acoustic analyses of Khwe speech. Additionally, open-mid [ɛ] emerges as an or marginal in some dialects, supported by spectrographic evidence showing transitions distinct from the five-vowel systems of Bantu contact languages. Phonotactics permit vowels in onset and nucleus positions, with complex interactions like regressive assimilation, where a following vowel's features (e.g., or backness) influence the preceding one, as observed in Khwe clusters. Vowels adjacent to clicks often exhibit centralization or lowering, a process evidenced in shifts in spectrograms, setting Khwe apart from non-click languages lacking such coarticulatory effects. No operates suffix-wide as in some Eurasian languages, but local assimilation ensures cohesion in multisyllabic roots.
Oral VowelsNasal VowelsNotes on Realization
/i//ĩ/High front
/e//ɛ̃/ or /ẽ/Mid-high front
/ɛ//ɛ̃/Open-mid front (dialectal)
/a//ã/Low central
/o//õ/Mid-back; [ɔ] short
/u//ũ/High back
This table summarizes the core inventory, with length applicable to all (e.g., /a/ vs. /aː/).

Non-Click Consonants

The non-click consonant inventory of Khwe comprises approximately 35 pulmonic phonemes, forming a system that is complex yet more uniform across dialects than the click consonants. This inventory includes stops at bilabial, alveolar, and velar places of articulation, realized in four series: voiceless unaspirated (/p, t, k/), voiced (/b, d, g/), aspirated (/pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/), and glottalized (/pʼ, tʼ, kʼ/). Fricatives occur at labiodental (/f/), alveolar (/s/), postalveolar (/ʃ/), velar (/x/), and glottal (/h/) places, while nasals include bilabial (/m/), alveolar (/n/), palatal (/ɲ/), and velar (/ŋ/) variants. Additional consonants encompass the lateral approximant (/l/), trill (/r/), palatal approximant (/j/), labiovelar approximant (/w/), and glottal stop (/ʔ/).
Manner \ PlaceBilabialAlveolarPostalveolarPalatalVelarGlottal
Stops (voiceless unaspir.)ptk
Stops (voiced)bdg
Stops (aspirated)pʰtʰkʰ
Stops (glottalized)pʼtʼkʼ
Fricativesfsʃxh
Nasalsmnɲŋ
Approximants/Liquidsljʔ
Trillr
Glottalization in stops represents a characteristic innovation of , emerging through historical processes of laryngeal feature spread not prominently attested in non-Khoe branches, contributing to the family's typological distinctiveness. These contrast phonemically, as evidenced by minimal pairs such as /ka/ 'to sit' versus /ga/ 'to stand' and /ta/ 'eye' versus /tʰa/ 'to hit', where manner distinctions alter lexical meaning. Place assimilation is common, particularly in nasal sequences, where a nasal adapts to the place of the following (e.g., /n + k/ → [ŋk]), a pattern consistent across Khwe dialects and verifiable in charts from fieldwork data. Though simpler in structural layering than the click system, non-click play a crucial role in tone assignment, with glottalized and aspirated variants often triggering high or falling tones on adjacent vowels, influencing lexical differentiation in this tonal language. The inventory's size and series reflect adaptations for dense phonological contrasts, supporting the language's expressive capacity amid environmental and social pressures on speakers.

Click Consonants

The Khwe language employs four primary click types as consonants: dental (ǀ), alveolar (ǃ), palatal (ǂ), and lateral (ǁ). These are produced via a velaric ingressive , where air is trapped between a forward oral closure (at the lips, teeth, alveolar ridge, , or side of the ) and a rear velar or uvular closure, then rarefied by lowering the body before abrupt release of the forward closure, generating the characteristic suction sound. Unlike pulmonic consonants, this lingual ingressive process allows clicks to function independently of airflow, enabling complex contrasts without respiratory dependency. Each click type combines with multiple accompaniments at the rear release, including tenuis (voiceless stop, e.g., |k or |q), aspirated (e.g., |qh or |qʰ), nasal (often weakly voiced, e.g., |ŋ or |gŋ), and glottalized (e.g., |qʼ), yielding an inventory of approximately 36 click phonemes as documented in early analyses. Velar (k-series) and uvular (q-series) variants provide additional place contrasts, with acoustic studies revealing distinct spectral properties: tenuis releases show sharp bursts around 2-4 kHz, aspirated ones prolonged frication, nasals lowered formants due to nasal coupling, and glottalized forms onset. These combinations distinguish minimal pairs in the , such as words for body parts or terms, underscoring clicks' role in core vocabulary differentiation rather than specialized grammatical marking.
Click TypeTenuis ExampleAspirated ExampleNasal ExampleGlottalized Example
Dental (ǀ)ǀkǀqhǀŋǀqʼ
Alveolar (ǃ)ǃkǃqhǃŋǃqʼ
Palatal (ǂ)ǂkǂqhǂŋǂqʼ
Lateral (ǁ)ǁkǁqhǁŋǁqʼ
Clicks bear a high functional load in Khwe's , comprising a significant portion of word-initial consonants and enabling lexical contrasts essential to semantic precision, as reconstructed for Proto-Khwe where eight of nine original accompaniments persist across dialects. Field recordings indicate dialectal variation, with some alveolar clicks merging or reducing in peripheral varieties, potentially signaling erosion under contact influences, though core series remain robust in fluent speech.

Tonal Features

Khwe exhibits a two-level tonal contrast between high and low registers, which function primarily as lexical tones on nouns, distinguishing minimal pairs such as those documented in field-based lexicons. This binary system reflects tonogenesis in the Khoe branch, where earlier laryngeal contrasts in proto-Khoe consonants—such as voiceless versus murmured or glottalized initials—evolved into pitch distinctions, with "default" initials associating with higher pitch and "depressed" ones with lower, as reconstructed across related languages like Gǀui and Naro. In Khwe dialects, mid tones appear sporadically, particularly in varieties like ǁXom, but do not form a stable third level across the cluster. Contour tones, including rising, falling, and peaking patterns, predominate on and arise from the tonal behavior of multisyllabic or long-vowel forms, often resulting in up to six additional melodies when combined with register levels. These contours evolved via prosodic mergers in the family, where sequential high-low assignments on extended morae produced dynamic pitch trajectories, evidenced by comparative showing parallels in Kalahari Khoe paradigms. Downdrift manifests in phrasal contexts, progressively lowering high-register realizations after low tones, while involves boundary adjustments like high-tone or spreading, as elicited from native speakers in documentation efforts. Click consonants interact suprasegmentally with tone, perturbing pitch through their efflux accompaniments: tenuis clicks permit clear high tones, whereas voiced, nasalized, or glottalized variants act as depressors, systematically lowering subsequent tone registers and flattening contours, a pattern consistent with aerodynamic effects observed in . This interaction underscores the language's areal typological profile, where click-induced perturbations amplify tonogenetic splits inherited from proto-forms.

Grammatical Features

Morphological Patterns

Khwe nominal morphology primarily involves the encliticization of person-gender-number (PGN) markers to noun phrases, which encode alongside distinctions in person, , and number. These markers fuse information to differentiate gender classes, with referents aligning to masculine or feminine forms and referents defaulting to a dedicated non-human class, thereby facilitating agreement without inherent on the stem itself. Plurality emerges through selection of plural PGN variants rather than autonomous suffixes, underscoring a system reliant on clausal agreement over isolated nominal affixation. Verbal morphology in Khwe is characterized by extensive suffixation, marking head-dependent relations through derivational and inflectional elements. derivations productively employ the -kà appended to the verb stem, altering valency to introduce an agentive causer. Aspectual nuances, such as completive or progressive, along with tense and mood, attach as sequential suffixes post-derivation, yielding agglutinative sequences tempered by tonal interactions and juncture elements that link stems in complex predicates. This suffix-heavy paradigm prioritizes verbal extension for semantic elaboration over prefixal or fusional alternatives predominant in neighboring families.

Syntactic Structures

Khwe exhibits flexible constituent order in declarative clauses, where primarily encodes pragmatic information such as focus and topicality rather than strict syntactic dependencies. Intransitive clauses rigidly follow a subject-verb (SV) pattern, as in examples where only SV order is permissible without additional markers. Transitive clauses favor an agent-object-verb (AOV) structure as the dominant template, though variations like object-agent-verb occur under discourse-driven fronting for emphasis or new information. This contrasts with the more rigid subject-verb-object (SVO) order typical in neighboring , allowing Khwe speakers greater syntactic adaptability. Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are a core feature, integrating multiple verbs into monoclausal structures to depict sequential or simultaneous sub-events sharing a single argument set, tense, and negation. These may be contiguous, with verbs adjacent and often linked by an -a-, or non-contiguous, permitting intervening elements like objects or adverbials while maintaining event unity. SVCs thus facilitate concise expression of complex actions, such as manner-motion combinations, without subordinate conjunctions. Nominal roles in clauses receive optional postposed case particles, particularly for indefinite participants; for instance, the marker (ʔ)à follows subjects or objects in transitive clauses but is omitted for definites, yielding a of without full ergative alignment. Focus fronting repositions constituents to clause-initial position for contrastive or new focus, overriding basic order without dedicated clefting. Interrogative clauses employ clause-final or initial particles alongside rising intonation, preserving the flexible order of declaratives.

Lexical Characteristics

Core Vocabulary

The core vocabulary of Khwe, as part of the Kalahari Khoe subgroup, retains numerous Proto-Khoe roots, particularly in stable semantic fields like numerals and body parts, where innovations are minimal compared to the more divergent (Nama) branch. Linguistic reconstructions indicate high lexical retention in Khwe dialects (e.g., ǁAni, Buga, ǀGanda), with Proto-Khoe forms often preserved intact or with minor phonetic shifts, reflecting conservative evolution in isolated Kalahari environments versus 's exposure to Bantu and colonial influences. Swadesh list analyses show retention rates exceeding 80% for basic items in Khwe versus Proto-Khoe, dropping to around 60% in Khoekhoe due to replacements from contact. In numerals, Khwe integrates click consonants into cardinal forms, distinguishing it from non-click systems in neighboring languages while preserving Proto-Khoe bases:
NumeralKhwe FormProto-Khoe Reconstruction
1tʰá*tʰa
2ǂxá*ǂxa
3ǂxéí*ǂxe
Higher numerals (4–10) show greater variation but retain click efflux patterns, such as alveolar or lateral clicks, illustrating innovation through compounding rather than wholesale replacement. diverges here, using non-click forms like !nona for "three," highlighting areal divergence within Khoe-Kwadi. Body part terms exemplify retention of Proto-Khoe roots with click onsets:
  • Eye: ǂxéí (from *ǂxai), used across Khwe dialects with tonal distinctions.
  • Hand: cʰàú (from *cʰau), denoting both and in basic usage.
  • Head: ǂú (from *ǂu), a core stable form.
  • Ear: ǂé (from *ǂe).
For environmental basics like , Khwe employs ǀxá or variants like cha, tracing to Proto-Khoe *ǀxa or *cha, with clicks marking the ingressive quality absent in Khoekhoe equivalents (e.g., !garib). These forms underscore Khwe's fidelity to proto-vocabulary, where semantic shifts are rare and primarily phonological.

Loanwords and Influences

Khwe maintains a low overall rate of lexical borrowing, with estimates suggesting that loanwords constitute a minor portion of the vocabulary, primarily confined to peripheral semantic domains rather than core , body parts, or environmental terms. This preservation reflects the language's historical association with subsistence, limiting deep integration of superstrate elements from dominant contact languages. Borrowings from , such as Mbukushu in the Caprivi region, predominantly involve practical terms for , , and , enabling pragmatic adaptations to sedentarization without eroding foundational lexicon. For instance, interactions with Bantu-speaking farmers have introduced vocabulary for cultivated crops and livestock management, as documented in Khwe speech corpora. Post-colonial contact has incorporated and English loanwords, particularly for administrative, technological, and wage-labor concepts, such as terms for , vehicles, and structures, reflecting asymmetrical power dynamics in and since the early . These superstrate influences are evident in texts, where Afrikaans-derived expressions appear alongside indigenous forms. Etymological reveals substrate resistance, as borrowed items rarely displace native equivalents and often undergo phonological , introducing non-core sounds like /ph/, /mb/, /nd/, /ŋg/, and /l/ while systematically avoiding clicks—a hallmark of Khwe's —to minimize disruption to inherited paradigms. This selective integration underscores causal patterns of contact-driven utility over wholesale assimilation, with borrowing rates remaining below those observed in more urbanized varieties.

Orthography and Documentation

Writing Systems

The Khwe language utilizes a practical orthography that draws on International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols to denote its click consonants, including ! for the , alongside Roman letters for non-click sounds. This system, building on Oswin Köhler's 1957 proposal and refined through community consultations, features 55 alphabetic units with bigraphs and trigraphs to capture phonemic distinctions such as voicing, aspiration, and nasalization in clicks. Efforts to standardize it gained momentum in during the 1990s, aligning with broader language documentation initiatives, though a remains without official recognition. Proposals for purely Roman-based orthographies, avoiding special symbols, have encountered practical limitations due to the language's 36 click phonemes, which demand nuanced representations beyond standard digraphs like those in Bantu click languages. Ambiguities arise when attempting to encode click types (dental, alveolar, palatal, lateral) and their accompaniments using familiar Roman combinations, often overlapping with non-click affricates or causing errors in reading. Harmonized standards for regional thus retain IPA adjuncts with Roman bases, but adoption in Khwe communities stays low, with literacy confined to a handful of individuals despite workshops like the 2020s Bwabwata National Park sessions. Bible translation initiatives have served as pilot tests for orthographic viability, evaluating readability in narrative texts where click-heavy words predominate. Early missionary efforts highlighted underuse, as unrefined Roman adaptations hindered fluent comprehension, reinforcing reliance on IPA-hybrid systems for accurate phonemic mapping in such applications.

Linguistic Resources

The primary lexical resource for Khwe is the Khwe Dictionary compiled by Christa Kilian-Hatz, published in 2003, which contains approximately 3,000 entries covering core vocabulary, phrases, and grammatical notes, drawn from fieldwork in West Caprivi, Namibia. This work includes a supplement on Khwe place-names by Matthias Brenzinger, enhancing its utility for toponymy and regional linguistics. While the dictionary provides foundational lexical data, it lacks exhaustive coverage of dialectal variants across the Khwe continuum, with empirical gaps evident in underrepresentation of eastern Angola and Zambian idiolects based on speaker consultations reported in the preface. Grammatical descriptions remain fragmentary, integrated into the dictionary's appendices rather than forming a standalone grammar; no comprehensive, peer-reviewed grammar of Khwe exists as of 2023, though related Kalahari Khoe languages like Ts'ixa have dedicated works that highlight shared features such as tonal morphology and serial constructions applicable by . Corpus resources are limited to analog and partially digitized audio collections, including Oswin Köhler's mid-20th-century field recordings of encompassing Khwe, now accessible via the Endangered Languages Documentation Programme (ELDP), totaling hours of elicited and narrative speech but without full interlinear glossing or searchable transcripts. Digital initiatives like offer supplementary samples, including short vocabulary lists and audio clips from native speakers in and , aimed at revitalization but covering only basic elicitation sets rather than structured corpora. These resources empirically reveal gaps in learner-oriented materials, with no verified textbooks, phrasebooks, or annotated corpora for pedagogical use, hindering systematic despite the language's relative documentation compared to other Khoe-Kwadi varieties.

Sociolinguistic Context

Cultural Significance

The Khwe language encapsulates ecological knowledge integral to the worldview of its speakers, with lexicon reflecting nuanced observations of and . Terms such as ||Xéba for the (Lycaon pictus) embody cultural lore attributing supernatural powers to the animal, including associations with water sources and predatory prowess that influence hunting taboos and practices. Khwe narratives describe wild dogs as both revered allies in tracking prey and feared omens, linking to empirical survival strategies honed over millennia in arid landscapes, where such distinctions aided resource prediction and social hunting cooperation. Oral traditions in Khwe, conveyed through folktales, preserve cosmological and moral frameworks tied to the language's phonetic and semantic structures. These stories, often featuring anthropomorphic animals and figures, encode adaptive wisdom about seasonal migrations, uses, and interpersonal , as documented in community-led collections of approximately 10 traditional narratives aimed at reinforcement. Ethnographic texts from mid-20th-century fieldwork, later analyzed for cultural , reveal how Khwe prosody and click consonants enhance performative elements, distinguishing these tales from neighboring Bantu traditions and reinforcing intergenerational . Amid 21st-century resettlements from ancestral territories in and , Khwe serves as a of ethnic identity, sustaining communal bonds through shared idioms and that counter assimilation pressures. Community accounts from displaced groups highlight language retention as a bulwark against cultural , with expressions like those for and fostering resilience in new settlements. This role underscores causal links between linguistic continuity and psychological well-being, as evidenced by studies on San idioms of distress where Khwe terms articulate experiences unique to forager heritage.

Revitalization Initiatives

In Platfontein, , the Khwe Language Advocacy Group, known as ǂ'Óm, was founded on April 10–11, 2025, during a community workshop to document, preserve, and revitalize the Khwe language among its approximately 20,000 global speakers, with a focus on the local community of several thousand. The group collaborates with entities such as the Pan South African Language Board, the Communal Property Association, and the to develop educational resources, promote Khwe instruction in schools and households, and engage elders, youth, educators, and cultural leaders in preservation activities. In , the Division of Marginalized Communities partnered with the Palms for Life Fund in to deliver Khwe language classes to youth in the Kavango East and regions, incorporating these sessions into vocational training programs that reached over 1,000 San youth. These initiatives build on earlier efforts, such as the employment of eight Khwe instructors to teach reading and writing in Khwedam to a community of about 4,000. Community-led projects have produced tangible documentation outputs, including the Khwe Yicerengu Xi initiative led by Patricia Dinyando, a Khwe San educator, which recorded 10 traditional folktales in Khwedam with support from Cultural Survival's Indigenous Youth Fellowship; these materials are slated for publication as a children's book to integrate mother-tongue learning into formal education. Complementing this, the Southern African San Development Organisation has conducted three-month workshops since 2022 to create storybooks, alphabet books, and teacher training modules in Khwedam, targeting San communities in with plans for expansion to and . Digital resources support these efforts, including a digitized app derived from historical German missionary work and audio recordings of stories available through the Global Recordings Network, facilitating access for heritage speakers and learners.

Policy and Preservation Challenges

In , post-independence language policies have emphasized Setswana and English as mediums of instruction and public communication, effectively sidelining such as Khwe by prohibiting their use in schools and official domains to promote national unity. This approach, critiqued in analyses from the , exacerbates the of Khwe through enforced assimilation, as speakers face barriers to transmitting the amid , dispossession, and illiteracy. In , similar governmental priorities favor dominant and English in education and administration, with Khwe (locally termed Khwedam) excluded from curricula and further fragmented by state-directed relocations of communities. These policies reflect a broader institutional neglect of vitality, prioritizing homogeneity over linguistic diversity without compensatory mechanisms for minority groups. Preservation efforts encounter internal barriers, including romanticized scholarly portrayals of peoples as pristine hunter-gatherers, which du Plessis (2020) argues perpetuates mythopoeic distortions in that prioritize exotic narratives over rigorous, practical documentation of languages like Khwe. Ongoing debates over —encompassing genetic affiliations and subgroupings—further divert resources from empirical assessments of speaker numbers and intergenerational transmission, as unresolved taxonomic disputes consume academic attention without advancing on-the-ground vitality metrics. Such controversies, rooted in ideological clashes like the Kalahari revisionism, hinder community-led documentation by fostering dependency on external expertise rather than fostering autonomous orthographic or archival development. A realistic for Khwe preservation demands shifting from aid-dependent subsidies to economic incentives that directly link language maintenance to tangible benefits, such as for cultural products or resource rights tied to traditional linguistic knowledge, countering the poverty-driven attrition observed in contexts. analyses underscore that without integrating use into viable livelihoods—avoiding handouts that reinforce marginalization—Khwe faces inevitable decline, as speakers prioritize dominant languages for survival in sidelined economies. Self-reliant models, emphasizing economic agency over perpetual state or NGO intervention, align with causal factors like land-based autonomy historically sustaining tongues.

References

  1. https://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/1185/701
  2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.169.1.0009
  3. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00084.x
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4945674/
  5. https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/khoe1240
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377291545_Lost_in_translation_A_historical-comparative_reconstruction_of_Proto-Khoe-Kwadi_based_on_archival_data
  7. https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/afrika_archiv/dokumente/linguistik-und-sprachen/gueldemann/heinepro.pdf
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332591034_Phonological_and_Lexical_Variation_in_the_Khwe_Dialect_Cluster
  9. https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/-1/afrika_archiv/dokumente/publikationen/gueldemann-elderkin.pdf
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-areal-linguistics/kalahari-basin-area-as-a-sprachbund-before-the-bantu-expansion/485DDBB77C6402D402AE1CA6CC7358AA
  11. https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-speaking-of-Khoisan/P3_Linguistics_Fehn_Kwadi__Khwe.pdf
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269868507_Christa_Kilian-Hatz_Khwe_Dictionary
  13. https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/afrika/afrikanistentag2018/medien/abstracts/a-fehn.pdf
  14. https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/afrika/linguistik/mitarbeiter/prof-dr-phil-tom-gueldemann/dokumente/gueldemann-tom-andrew-b-smith-and-vladimir-bajic-forthcoming-the-archeolinguistics-of-kalahari-basin-area-languages.pdf
  15. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-71
  16. https://hal.science/hal-01960282/file/Pakendorf_etal_2017_Prehistoric_Bantu-Khoisan_language_contact.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319528198_%27Khoisan%27_sibling_terminologies_in_historical_perspective_A_combined_anthropological_linguistic_and_phylogenetic_comparative_approach
  18. https://khomani.co.za/navigating-the-crossroads-the-khwe-of-southern-africa-in-a-changing-world/
  19. https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/10.3828/hgr.2019.6
  20. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/bitstreams/ac8ecba8-4ba6-4dbd-b74e-43ca090b4497/download
  21. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10216107/1/Chapter%252006.pdf
  22. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2224-33802019000300012
  23. https://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/scraping.pdf
  24. https://the-eis.com/elibrary/sites/default/files/downloads/literature/The%2520Khwe%2520and%2520West%2520Caprivi%2520before%2520Namibian%2520independence.pdf
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313272386_Phonemic_clicks_and_the_mapping_asymmetry_How_language_emerged_and_speech_developed
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50915778_A_Historical_Appraisal_of_Clicks_A_Linguistic_and_Genetic_Population_Perspective
  27. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/10/2180/1071196
  28. https://medium.com/wikitongues/revitalizing-the-khwedam-language-389f5c3525a1
  29. https://www.pansalb.org/wp-content/uploads/Pansalb-Khoe-and-San-Report_compressed.pdf
  30. https://joshuaproject.net/languages/xuu
  31. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/xuu
  32. http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas
  33. https://www.sorosoro.org/en/khoe-languages/
  34. https://www.acu.ac.uk/the-acu-review/botswana-s-marginalised-voices/
  35. https://repository.unam.edu.na/bitstreams/9844648c-ce29-49ac-9a94-2ae8e4594fd1/download
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338576604_The_curse_of_poverty_and_marginalisation_in_language_development_The_case_of_Khoisan_languages_of_Botswana
  37. https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/kxoe1243
  38. https://www.academia.edu/77572398/Language_attitudes_as_a_change_agent_for_language_vitality_a_case_study_of_two_Khoesan_languages_in_Platfontein_RSA_
  39. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110905694-011/html?lang=en
  40. https://www.academia.edu/69815052/Speakers_living_and_languages_dying_The_endangerment_of_Xo_o_and_%25C3%25B8Hua_in_Botswana
  41. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/slcs.110.10kil/html
  42. https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-speaking-of-Khoisan/P8b_Linguistics_Naumann_Southern_Africa_Phonology.pdf
  43. https://sahistory.org.za/archive/kora-lost-khoisan-language-chapter-3-sounds-kora
  44. https://journals.flvc.org/sal/article/download/133938/139172/255981
  45. https://www.isfas.uni-kiel.de/de/linguistik-und-phonetik/team/ehemalige-mitarbeiterinnen/prof.-dr.-alena-witzlack-makarevich/witzlacknakagawa_khoisan
  46. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/slcs.110.10kil/pdf
  47. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Grammar_of_Modern_Khwe_central_Khoisan.html?id=XQYxAQAAIAAJ
  48. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004424357/BP000008.xml
  49. https://roa.rutgers.edu/content/article/files/1622_bennett_1.pdf
  50. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004424357/BP000014.xml
  51. https://www.iaaw.hu-berlin.de/de/afrika/linguistik/mitarbeiter/prof-dr-phil-tom-gueldemann/dokumente/gueldemann-2007a-clicks-and-proto-world/%40%40download/file/G%25C3%25BCldemann%25202007a%2520Clicks%2520and%2520proto-world.pdf
  52. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004424357/BP000016.xml
  53. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02519305/file/Michaud_Sands_2020_Tonogenesis.pdf
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323188372_Nominal_marking_in_Northern_Tshwa_Kalahari_Khoe
  55. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.5774/48-0-284
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40851988_Reconstruction_through_%27De-Construction%27_The_Marking_of_Person_Gender_and_Number_in_the_Khoe_Family_and_Kwadi
  57. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/view/173/1276/1050-1
  58. https://academic.oup.com/book/52499/chapter/421413133
  59. https://jolr.ru/files/(357)jlr2024-22-3-4(216-240).pdf
  60. https://starlingdb.org/new100/kho.pdf
  61. https://starlingdb.org/Texts/khoisan.pdf
  62. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=322441044325112
  63. https://www.sundaystandard.info/govt-not-using-proper-writing-system-for-bushmen-languages/
  64. https://journals.flvc.org/sal/article/download/134981/139180/255989
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396568236_Orthography_Challenges_in_Khoisan_Literacy_The_Case_of_Gui_and_Gana_Communities
  66. https://jutta-vogel-stiftung.de/en/khwe-orthography-workshop-in-bwabwata-national-park-namibia/
  67. https://lbt.org/bible-bush/
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272323237_Khwe_Dictionary
  69. https://www.academia.edu/107337088/Khwe_Dictionary
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325975789_A_Grammar_of_Ts%27ixa_Kalahari_Khoe
  71. https://eldp.access.preservica.com/dk0486/
  72. https://wikitongues.org/languages/xuu/
  73. https://living-language-land.org/words/xeba/
  74. https://ibali.uct.ac.za/s/the-winds-place/page/living-language
  75. https://www.facebook.com/LivingLanguageLand/posts/the-khwe-of-present-day-namibia-have-a-special-relationship-with-the-african-wil/246020780924988/
  76. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/promoting-san-education-namibia-patricia-dinyando
  77. https://minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/8017/files/SES99_08.pdf
  78. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/25706046/Chapter_2.pdf
  79. https://khwe.co.za/
  80. https://iwgia.org/en/namibia/5634-iw-2025-namibia.html
  81. https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/feature/2006/05/18/helping-khwe-keep-their-voice
  82. https://globalrecordings.net/en/language/xuu
  83. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037e-9754-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  84. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004516724/BP000004.pdf
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345580916_The_damaging_effects_of_romantic_mythopoeia_on_Khoesan_linguistics
  86. https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/alan-barnard-the-kalahari-debate-a-bibliographical-essay
  87. https://cadernos.abralin.org/index.php/cadernos/article/view/723
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321276386_Khoisan_Languages_of_Botswana
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.