Chapter XIX: Introduction: Salient Features (18)

In the Yuman list, however, there are several different stems employed to designate the digit “five”. The forms _sarap_, _seráp_, _harabk_, and _hairrap’k_ are clearly variants of a single original. Its literal signification, however, is not so evident, but from the data at hand the inference is warranted that it signifies “entire, whole, complete”. In the Mohave of Dr Corbusier _hi-sal koçar̃ápa_ signifies “the whole hand”, and “fingers”, _koçar̃ápa_ being also written _kothar̃ápa_. Now, _hi-sal_ means “his hand”, and _koçar̃ápa_ or _kothar̃ápa_ would soon lose its initial _ko-_, from the wear to which it is subjected. In _hatábuk_, _hûtápa_, and _satabé_ a new stem is to be recognized; it signifies “to grasp”, or rather “grasps”, and is found in _aauwa sataba_, “fire-tongs”, in which, _aauwa_ means “fire” and _sataba_ “to hold, take hold”. The reference here is to the clasped hand as signifying the digit “five”, because in counting the fingers are bent down upon the palm of the hand, the result being a closed or clasped hand. Now, in _selkh-akai_ and _sol-chepam_, a form of the usual _säl_, “hand”, occurs, and _-akai_ and _-chepam_ have presumptively a signification semantically equivalent to _koçar̃apa_ and _sataba_ in the preceding Yuman examples, but the meagerness of the material at hand prevents the setting forth of the data necessary to prove this conjecture; yet it may be stated that if the term “hand” is a constituent element of the name for the digit “five”, it is because of the fact that the fingers and the thumb thereof are in number “five”, so that “the entire hand, the whole hand, the complete hand”, may become the name for the digit “five”. Hence, when the word hand is an element of the name thereof, as it is in the present instance, it is presumptively certain that some word like “entire, complete, whole, clasped, bent down”, must form the other element of the compound. The Cochimi (II) _muguacogüi_ is seemingly a combination of _mugua_ for the cognate _humuga_, “three”, and _cogüi_ for _goguó_, “two”. And the Cochimi (I) _nyakivampai_ is a compound of _gi-nyak_, “hand” [_mi-nyak_, foot], and some element denoting the completion of the count of the digits of one hand, _-i-vampai_ or _vampai_. The Cochimi (III) and (IV) are self-explanatory, _naganna_, signifying “hand”, while Laymon (IV) is not explainable from the accessible data. These analyses fail to show genetic relationship between the two lists, in so far as the digit “five” is concerned.

SIX

_Serian_

A. nahpsūk
B. napk´schoch
C. napshoχ´, imapkasho
D. snapkashroj

_Yuman_

2. geshbe
3. hamhoke
13. hoomahook
17. hoomahook
15. humhôck
16. humhoke
12. humhóok
24. humhock
4. humhóque
20. joumjóc (j as in Spanish)
5. χemχúk
I. ic̲h̲kyum-kabiak
IV. kamioec kawam=2×3
8. maike-sin-kenaich
23. m´sig-eleepai
14. niu-gushbai
25. kumhōk
26. kŭmhok
7. seeinta
9. siínta
6. siyinta
18. dě-spé
10. ta-sbe-k
19. tě-shbé
21. te-shpě´-k
22. te-zpé
11. tû-spě´
1. tü-rspe

The given forms of the Serian digit “six” are evidently mere variants of a common original, which seems quite naturally to have been composed of the stem _-apka_ of the numeral “three”, and of both a prefix and a suffix. The prefixes, for there are two, are, to judge from the one in _imapkasho_, demonstrative in character. It may be compared with _im-_ in _imk´_, “he”; _imke_, “that”; _imkove_, “they”; _imki_, “that”, in which it appears to be a directive prefix. And the initial _n-_ and _sn-_ may be cognate in origin. But the final _-sūk_, _-’schoch_, _-shoχ´_, _-sho_, and _-shroj_, according to the audition or otosis of the collector, must mean “repeated, doubled, again”, etc., or an equivalent. Hence, the Seri number “six” would be literally “three repeated”.

In the Yuman column at least eight different elements are involved in the formation of the digit “six” in the several dialects of the group. The digits “two” and “three” compose the larger portion of the forms, resulting in such outlines as _hamhoke_, _hoomahook_, _humhoke_, _humhóque_, _χemχúk_, _kumhok_. _Hamok_ (10), “three”, is a characteristic form of this digit, and _ẖooak_ (23), _habick_ (4), and _kuáka_ (19), _óak_ (14), _uake_ (2), are characteristic outlines of the digit “two”. Compare these two lists. The final _-k_; of the numeral “three” is elided in composition, as it is merely a predicative element, as has been indicated in discussing the Yuman digit “three”; hence, _ham-_ or _hum-_, symbolizing “three”, with the suffixion of such forms as _ẖooak, huáka_, or _uake_, “two”, readily becomes _humnhoke_ or _hamhoke_, literally “two threes”. In such forms as _geshbe_ (2), _despé_ (18), and _niugushbai_ (14) there occurs a common element _-shbe_, _-spé_, or _-shbai_, which evidently signifies “added, over, plus”, just as _-eleepai_ does in _m´sig-eleepai_ (23), “six”, literally “one added, one more than”. The _ge-_ or _-g-_ in (2) is evidently the final _g_ of the Kiliwi form of the numeral one, _mesig_, _m´sig_, which may have at one time been the digit “one” in the Tonto (2); so that _geshbe_ or _g-eshbe_ stands for an earlier _měsig-eshbe_, “six”, literally “one added (to five)”. The term _de-spé_ is evidently a contracted form of _siínta-spe_, “one added”, as the other similar forms show. Compare _ta-sbe-k_ (10) and _siínta_, (9) and _siyinta_ (6), in the last two of which the suffix is wanting or at least overlooked by the collector. In _ic̲h̲kyum-kabiak_ (I) the digit _kabiak_, “three”, occurs, so that _ic̲h̲kyum_, must mean “repeated, again, iterated”, just as it was shown in the remarks on the digit _four_. Now, the form _maike-sin-kenaich_ is, perhaps, an ordinal and not a cardinal. The initial _maike-_ signifies “more, over, added, plus”, the final _-kenaich_ is the doubtful part, and the middle portion _-sin-_ is a contracted form of _sinta, siínta_, “one”, as may be seen in the list of the Yuman forms of the digit “one”. One other form remains to be considered. The Diegueño (14) of Dr Loew has _niu-gu-shbai_ (the syllabication is the writer’s, showing the elements of the combination). An examination of the digits “seven”, “eight”, and “nine” reveals the fact that the initial _niu-_ has the value of “added, over, plus, in addition to”, five. But it has been seen that the ending _-shbaí_ has a like signification. The only reasonable explanation of this anomaly is that like the Tonto (2) _g-eshbe_, it owes its origin to the term represented by the Kiliwi _měsig_; and, moreover, it seems to be a dialectic loan-word. If the term _geshbe_ (2) was adopted as meaning _six_, supplanting, it may be, an earlier form like _hamhoke_, the force of analogy, to assimilate this to the other forms, namely, of “seven”, “eight”, and “nine”, would affix the regular dialectic prefix _niu-_ (or _nio-_). These explanations and analyses of the diverse forms of the numeral “six” reveal no relationship between the Serian and the Yuman groups.

SEVEN

_Serian_

A. kahkwūū
B. kachqhue
C. kaχkχue, tomkaχkue
D. tomkujkeui

_Yuman_

22. hawake-zpé
18. hěwakě-spé
10. hoáge-shbe-k
2. hoage-shbe
19. huáké-shpë
11. hwag-spě, hwagû-spě
1. waka-spe
23. ẖooak-eleepai
8. maik-kewikenaich
14. nio-khoak
20. paajkék
13. pahkae
17. pahkai
5. paχkyèk
21. pakai
24. pakai
3. pakha
16. parkai
4. patchkieque
12. pathcayé
I. chaquera-vampai
7. bee-eeka
9. víka
6. viiga

It is evident that the forms of the Serian digit “seven” are variants from a common source, and it is equally apparent that the numeral “two” is the basis for the term. The several examples of this numeral are _ghá`kum_, _kahom_, _kaχ´kum_, _kookχ´_, in which the final _-um_, or _-om_ appears to be a suffix; in the term for “twenty” Professor MeGee writes _ŭntçkō´k_; in which the final _kō´k_ is the term denoting “two”, and in which the final _-um_ or _-om_ is wanting, which probably indicates that it is a flexion. Now, it is seen that this numeral “seven” terminates in the syllable _-wūū_, _-ue_, and _-ui_, in direct contrast with, the termination of the digit “two”. The material at hand is too limited to determine whether this final syllable should be _-wūū_, _-ue_, _-ui_, or _-kwūū_, _-kue_, _-kui_. It apparently signifies “added, over, plus”, or some equivalent term. To attain economy of utterance the term denoting “five” was omitted from the original statement, “two added to five”, as the expression of the number seven, and so “two added” became the name of the number “seven”. An initial _tom_, _tum_, _tŭn_, or _diŭn_ occurs in the names for 7, 17, 70, and 700. An evident derivative from the name for “hand”, it denotes “five”. It is a cognate of _ŭnt_ in _ksókhŭnt_ “nine”, literally “four-five”, and also with _tanchl_ in Mr Bartlett’s numbers 12-19; the correct form for “seven”, it would seem, should have been _tan`l kaχkue_, etc., “five-two-added-on”; its initial _t_ is identical with the_t_ in _t-aul_ (_t-anl_?), “ten”. The difference in the endings of this prefix—the difference between an _m_ and an _n_—may easily be explained. In the several vocabularies it is seen that one collector fancied he heard an _m_ sound, while another, equally careful, heard an _n_ sound. The fact appears to be that it is an obscure nasal sound, which may readily be taken either for an _m_ sound or an _n_ sound by the heteroglot. In Bartlett’s list of numerals _tan-tasó-que_ signifies “eleven”, wherein _tasó-_ is the numeral “one”, as given by both M Pinart and Sr Tenochio, _tan-_ the prefix under discussion, and _-que_ the suffix mentioned above, which was regarded as signifying “added, more, plus”.

The first eight terms of the Yuman list are clearly modified forms of a single original combination, which is apparently still retained nearly unchanged in the Yavapai (18) of Corbusier, _hěwakě-spé_. The signification and function of the final _-spé_ have been discussed in the remarks on the probable derivations and meanings of the Yuman names for “six”. The given conceptual element is evidently the term _hěwakě-_, “two”. And _-spé_, as has been ascertained, signifying “added, more, plus”, etc., the expression literally means “two added”, i. e., to five, which is here understood, but unnecessary, since “two added” has acquired the meaning “seven”, originally expressed by the entire proposition. The Kiliwee (23) term _ẖooak-eleepai_, “seven”, has literally the same meaning as the terms last under discussion. It will be seen that the conceptual element is the term _ẖooak_;, “two”, which is only another form of _hěwakě_, treated above. Now, it is mathematically certain that if “two” be an element of the concept “seven”, it must be _added_ to some preceding number that will produce the result sought, and this number is of course five. So it is presumptively certain that the element _-eleepai_ must mean “added, laid onto, superadded, subjoined”. The Hummockhave (8) _maik-kewik-enaich_ is composed of the conceptual element _kewik_, “two”, the prefix _maik-_ meaning “more, over”, and the suffix _-enaich_ (or _-kenaich_), which seems to be an ordinal or distributive flexion. So that “two over, added”, is here likewise the expression for the numeral “seven”. The next form, the Diegueño (14) of Dr Loew is another example of the use of the numeral “two” with different flexions, to express the number “seven”. An examination of this Diegueño list of numerals shows that in such a form as _nio-khoak_, “seven”, the initial _nio-_ is a prefix signifying “added, in addition to”, etc., while the _khoak_ is a form of the numeral “two”. The next ten forms, while apparently derivative from a common source, are difficult of explanation from the material at hand. The same may be said of the last four, three of which are evidently cognate and are very probably shortened forms of the original represented by the first group in the list. Take, for example, a form like (22) _hawake-zpé_, and drop the final _-zpé_, as is done in some of the terms in the “eight” list, and also the initial _ha-_, and the result is a form _wake_, which in the dialects (6) and (9) would become _viiga_, _víka_, which is the form of the digit “two” in these dialects. The form (7) _bee-eeka_ is also merely the digit “two” of this dialect without any index to show that it is not “two” rather than “seven”. The same thing is to be noticed in the Serian lists, in which the form for thirteen is in all respects the same as that for the numeral “eighteen”, both apparently meaning merely “three added”.

EIGHT

_Serian_

A. páhkwūū
B. phraque
C. kshoχolka, p’χakχue
D. osrojoskum (osχ´oχoskum?)

_Yuman_

23. ẖamiak-eleepai
10. hamúge-shbe-k
22. hamuke-zpé
18. hěmukě-spé
18. hěmukě-spé
11. hmaga-spe
1. humuga-spe
2. moge-shbe
19. múkě-shpë
9. móka
7. moo-ooka
6. muugá
16. chip-hoke
12. chip-hóok
21. hipp-óka
3. sep-hoke
13. seepa-hook
4. sepp-óque
5. sep-χúk
15. sepp-ôck
17. shepa-hook
20. siip-jóc (j=χ)
25. tcěp-hōk
26. tcěp-hōk
8. maike-homok-enaich
14. nio-khamuk
24. pakai-hin-awach
I. nyakivamivapai

The Serian numeral “eight” is expressed by two different terms. The first is based on the numeral three, and the second on the digit four. The former is the remaining factor of an original expression which signified by uttered elements “three added to five (=the full hand)”, but the need for economy of expression led to the suppression of the uttered element denoting “five”, as soon as the shorter “three added” acquired the usual signification of “eight”. The basis of the digit is _kō´pka_ or _kapχ´a_, “three”, with the suffix _-kwūū_ (_-kχue_, _-que_), presumably denoting “added, plus”. This represents the usual method of forming this digit. The second term, _kshoχolka_, is that which is presumably based on the numeral “four”. This is the form given by M Pinart. But Sr Pimentel, citing Sr Tenochio, writes this _osrojoskum_, which at first sight appears to be quite different from the other; yet the _r_ of the latter evidently stands for a modified _χ_ and the _j_ for a _χ_, and making these substitutions the term becomes _osχ´oχoskum_, which is approximately the form in which Professor McGee and Mr Bartlett wrote this digit in the numeral “eighty”. Now, it is self-evident that if the element “four” constitute a factor in the combination denoting “eight”, it must be added to itself by addition or multiplication, and the result will be the same in either event. The final _-olka_ appears also as _-otkŭm_, _-olchkom_, and _-oskum_, in these Serian vocabularies, either in the numeral “four” or its multiples. The origin and signification of this ending are not clear; but taking into consideration the great variations in the spelling of its recorded forms, especially in so far as the consonant sound preceding the _k_-sound is concerned, it may not be presumptive to adopt the _s_-sound (though _sχ´_ may be more correct) as that which represents approximately at least the true sound, for it varies from _l_, _t_, _lch_, to _s_. And it has been seen that the final _-um_ is a flexion denotive of serial or consecutive counting and so not a part of the stem. Then it is seen that _-s-k-_ (the last two hyphens representing uncertain vowels) is the termination requiring explanation. Now, it is probable that this termination is identical in meaning and origin with the _-sūk_, _-shoχ_, _-sho_, _-schoch_, and _-shroj_ (= _-shχ´oχ_) terminating the forms of the digit “six”. If this identification be correct (and there is no present reason to doubt it), it signifies “repeated, again, duplicated”, as was suspected and stated in the discussion of the forms of the numeral “six”. So granting this derivation to be correct, _kshoχolka_, then, signifies “four repeated”, which of course denotes “eight”.

In the Yuman list, the first eleven forms are evidently composed of the numeral “three” and a suffix signifying “added, plus, more than”, but the last three of the group want this suffix, a fact due perhaps to the fault of the collector rather than to linguistic development. The terminations _-eleepai_ and _-shbe-k_ and its variants have already been explained when treating of the numeral “seven”. And the twelve forms beginning with _chip-hoke_ (16) are variants from a common original composed of the numerals “two” and “four”. It will be readily seen that _chip-_ in such a form as _chip-hoke_ is a contraction of a form such as _tchibabk_ (14), “four”, _chepap_ (24), “four”, as may be seen in the Yuman list of terms for the digit “four”. Now, the next portion of the term is _-hoke_, which is but a slightly disguised numeral “two”, as may be seen by reference to the schedules of the numeral “two”. Compare _ẖooak_ (23), _huáka_ (19), _uake_ (2), and _hěwáki_ (18), all signifying “two”. Now, the next term, _maike-homok-enaich_ (8), is a combination of _maike_, “above, over, more than”, _homok_, “three”, and the ending _-enaich_ (or _-kenaich_), which may be either an ordinal or a distributive flexion. The form _nio-khamuk_ (14) is a combination of the prefix _nio-_, signifying “added, above, or more than”, and the conceptual term _khamuk_, “three”, the expression signifying “three over, or added to”. The next two examples are evidently irregular, if not spurious. The form _pakaikhin-awach_ is composed of _pakai_, “seven”, _khin-_, “one”, and the suffix _-awach_, “added to”. Now, the last, the Cochimi _nyaki-vamivapai_, appears to be erroneous. It contains the term _nyaki_ for _ginyaki_, “hand”, but the remainder of the expression is composed of elements that are not comparable to anything in the meager material at present accessible. The Serian and the Yuman terms herein show no relationship.

NINE

_Serian_

A. ksókhŭnt, _ksókh-ŭnt_
B. sohántl, _soh-ántl_
C. soχanthe, _soχ-anthe_, ksovikanlχ´
D. ksobbejoaul (j=χ)

_Yuman_

9_a._ hailyuthu
1. halathuya
11. halathúya
10. halathúig
22. halesúwi
19. halěsúyi
2. halseye
18. húlěthúyi
3. hamhinmoke
13. hoomhoomook
17. hoomhoomook
15. humhummôck
4. humhummóque
12. humhamóok
21. hŭmhummúka
20. jumjamúç (umχamúk?)
5. χemχemúk
8. muke
16. n’yimhummoke
26. nĭmhŭmmōk
23. m’sigk-tkmat
14. nitchibab, (ni(o)tchibab)
6. paaya
7. paeeya
9_b_. páia
I. quac̲h̲era-vampai

The first three Serian terms for “nine” are evidently forms of a common original, signifying “four added to five”. It is evident that _ksō´kh-_ in (A) _ksō´kh-ŭnt_ is the same element as _-ksō´k_ in _ūnçtksō´k_, “forty”, and _-kschō´k_ in _ŭnz-untçkŭkschō´k_, “400”. The element _-ŭnt_ here is a name for “five”. Its literal meaning is “hand”, which may be gathered from the following citations: _ŭnol´k_=“hand”; _mĭ´noŭl´t_=“arm”; _ŭnulte-mŭ´ka`p_=“middle finger”, in which _ŭnulte_ means “finger (or hand)”. These are from the vocabulary of Professor McGee. Then M Pinart records _innolχ´_, “arm”, _in[=tl]ash_ “hand”, _inol’tis_, “finger, index finger”, _inol’tip_ “ring finger”. And Mr Bartlett writes _inoyl_, “arm”, _inossiskersk_, “hand”, _inosshack_, “fingers”. This _-ŭnt_ will be further treated when the numeral “ten” is under discussion.

While it is evident that the first eight forms of the Yuman list are but variants from a common original, it is not, however, so clear what the original signification of the combination was. But as there can not be any question of relationship between these and the Serian terms, this fact will not affect the result of this study. The next terms of the Yuman list are variants of an entirely different combination of elements. The forms (15) _humhum-môck_ and (12) _humhamóok_ may be taken as characteristic of these terms. Now, it is plain that there is here duplication of the stem _hum-_ or _ham-_, “three”, making the literal sense of the combination to be “three threes”, which of course gave the required meaning. The Cochimi (23) _m’sigk-tkmat_ contains the element _m’sig_, “one”, and the final _tkmat_, which appears to mean “lacking, wanting, or less”. And in the Diegueño (14) _nitchibab_ for _niotchibab_ a still different method of expressing “nine” is found. In discussing the numeral “seven” and “eight” the signification of the initial _nio-_ was ascertained to be “added to, over, plus”, and _tchibab_ is of course the numeral “four”. The original expression, then, was “four added to five”, producing the required number, “nine”. The next three forms, though evidently cognate, are, like the first group, not analyzable from the data to be obtained from the meager material at present accessible. The last form is doubtful. These analyses show no relationship between the Serian and the Yuman terms.

TEN

_Serian_

A. khóhnŭtˡ, _khóh-nŭt´_
B. honachtl, _ho-nachtl_
C. χonalχ´, _χo-nalχ´_, kanlχ, _ka-nlχ´_
D. taul (tanl?)

_Yuman_

6. aráabá
9. arháp
7. arrapa
8. raphawaich
18. buwáwi
1. huwava
19. uábi
2. uave
11. uwawa, (h)wáwa
10. varuk, vuáruk
22. wáwe
3. sahhoke
12. sahóohk
21. sahóka
13. sauhook
15. shahôck
20. shahahjóc (j=χ)
4. shahóque
5. shaχúk
16. sharhoke
17. shauhook
14. selgh-iamát
23. chepam-mesig
III. naganna ignimbal demuejueg=“todas las manos”
I. nyavani-chaqni

The Serian forms of the numeral “ten” are apparently cognate, being composed, it would seem, of the same elements. Thus they are mere variants of a common original expression, signifying, literally, “two fives”, or what originally was the same thing, “two hands”.

The element _khóh-_ in (A) _khólnŭut’_ represents _ghá‘k:(kha‘k)_ or _kō´k_, as it is also written, signifying “two”, and _-nŭt’_ is the slightly disguised name for “hand” and “finger”, being also transcribed as _-nachtl_, _-nalχ´_, _-nlχ_, and lastly _-aul_. Compare these carefully with the words denoting “arm, hand, finger”, in this language, and it will be seen that the spelling of _khóh-_ varies in the several vocabularies from _khóh-_, _ho-_, _χo-_, to _ka-_, respectively. The derivation of the _t_, or rather _tä_, in _taul_ of Sr Tenochio, is not evident, but seems to be cognate with the prefix _tom-_, _tum-_, _tŭn-_, or _diŭn-_, already noticed, making _taul_ thus signify “five added”, i. e., to five, and so producing “ten units”. Such seems to be the evident resolution of the Serian names for the numeral “ten”. But _taul_ may have been miswritten for _ta-an`l_.

The first four terms of the Yuman list are plainly based on the numeral “five”, expressed by _sarap_. The form _raphawaich_ (8) is evidently a shortened form of _saraphowwaich_, literally “two fives”, or, what was the same thing at the beginning, “two hands”. The first term, _sarap_, signifies “five, finger”, denotively, but its literal or connotive signification is “entire, whole, full, complete, collectively”, a meaning which was suggested in the discussion of the numeral “five”. And _howwaich_ is the form of the digit “two” in this dialect.

The next nine forms are so contracted, irregular, and, perhaps, miswritten that an analysis of them is a matter of doubt and difficulty, but the following ten terms are cognate and signify “two fives (hands)”, or, denotively, “ten”. In the comparative list of names for the “arm, hand, finger”, etc., _shah_, _shawas_, _shawarra_, and _eesarlya_ are a few of the many variants of _säl_, “arm, hand, finger”, etc. So, in such a form as _sahhoke_ (3) the _sah_ is the name for “hand” and _hoke_ is the numeral “two”, the combination signifying “two fives, hands”, or “ten”. The other nine terms are but variants of the original of this compound. In _selgh-iamát_ (14), _selgh_ for _isalgh_ is the element denoting “hand”, or “five”, while _iamat_ means “added to, upon, over”, there being the subaudition of the element denoting “five”. Hence the original combination meant “five added to five”, or “ten”. This is a strict application of the quinary system.

The Kiliwee term, _chepam-mesig_ (23) signifies literally “one _chepam_”. If reference be made to the “five” list, it will be seen that there _sol-chepam_ signifies “five”, or, to be exact, is the translation of the term “five”. Now, the element _sol-_ of this compound is a variant of _esal_, “hand”, while _chepam_, judging from analogy, must signify “the whole, entire, the complete”, collectively “all”. Moreover, the Kiliwee terms for “fingers (dedos)” and “toes (dedos del pié)”are _salchepa_ and _emechepah_, respectively, wherein the element _chepah_ is added to _esal_, “hand”, and to _eme_, “leg”. Hence it may be inferred that _chepam-mesig_ signifies “one complete count of all the fingers”, and so “ten”. The next is Cochimi, in which _naganna_ means “hand”, and the last term (I) appears to be miswritten. It will be seen from these partial analyses of the names for the digit “ten” that there is no linguistic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman terms.

ELEVEN

_Serian_

A.
B. tan-tasó-que
C.
D.

_Yuman_

6. aséentik-nitauk
8. sienti
1. sita-giala
10. siti-giálaga
18. siti-kwaä´hli
11. sitta-gálla
3. sahhoke-shitti
4. shahóque-maga-shentick
20. shahajóc umaig ashénd
2. uave-shiti
19. uáveshíti
5. maik-shendík
13. mae-sint
21. emmiá-shiti-ki
23. mesigk-malha
14. nie-khin

The only Seri example of the numeral “eleven” is that which was recorded by Mr Bartlett, who writes it _tan-ta-só-que_, instead of _tan-tasó-que_, which exhibits the component elements of this compound. This expression signifies “one added to, or, over, upon”. Its conceptual base is the numeral _tasó_, “one”. The initial _tan-_ has already been discussed while treating of the numeral “seven”. It was there made a cognate of the initial _tom-_ or _tum-_ of the several examples of that digit, and likewise of _tanchl_ in Mr Bartlett’s numbers 12-19. It would seem that the correct form for “eleven” should be _tanchl-tasóque_, i. e., “ten-one-added-on”. Where “hand” is the name for “five” and is an element in the name for “ten” there arises confusion, unless there is marked difference between the two expressions.

In the Yuman list the first fourteen examples of the numeral “eleven” have some form of the digit _aséentik_ (_sita_, _siti_, _sint_, _shiti_), “one”, as the dominant element in the expression, while the elements denoting “added to, more than, plus”, are severally as follows: in the first _-nitauk_, in four others a variant of _-giala_, in five others the prefix _maga-_ (_umaiga_, _emmiá_, _mae_); while in some such a flexion is entirely wanting, probably, at least in a majority of the forms, because of misapprehension on the part of the several collectors rather than the abrasion of use. But in _mesigk-malha_ (23) _mesigk_ denotes “one”, and _malha_ “plus, added to”. In the form _nie-khin_ (14), _khin_ signifies “one”, and the prefix _nie-_, “plus, added”. It will be noticed that the flexion _maga_ (_umaiga_, _mae_, _emmiá_) is a prefix to the element “one”, and so when _shahoque_, “ten”, is expressed as in (4) it stands between the two notional terms. But in (8) neither “ten” nor an element denotive of addition is expressed.

TWELVE

_Serian_

A.
B. tanchltoque, tan-chlt-oque
C.
D.

_Yuman_

6. havik-nitauk
11. hawā-gálla
18. hěwakě-kwä´hli
10. hovak-tiálik
23. ẖooak-malha
1. huwaga-giala
21. emmiá-hawáka
13. mae-hewik
5. maik-χawík
19. uá-hoáki
2. uave-uake
14. nie-khvabgushbaib
20. shahahjóc umai-javíc (j=χ)
4. shahóque maga habick
8. vaike.

The only known example of the Seri numeral “twelve” is that which was recorded by Mr Bartlett. He has apparently misapprehended its true pronunciation, for he wrote _tanchl-to-que_ instead of _tanchltakahque_ or _tanchltakochque_. In his orthography _kahom_ signifies “two”, but the final _-om_ is employed only in serial counting, so that _kah-_ is the stem, which is only a variant of _koch_ in _eansl-koch_, “twenty”; and _tanchl_ signifies “ten”.

In the first six examples of the Yuman list the element “ten” is not expressed, but only some form of the numeral “two”, with a suffix denoting “added to, over, more than”; in the next three the flexion of addition is prefixed to the element “two”; and in the next two, (19) and (2) respectively, the element “two” is immediately preceded by the very abbreviated and perhaps misapprehended forms of the numeral “ten”; in the next a very questionable form is recorded, for it appears to be an attempt to form a compound signifying “two times six”, but without accomplishing the purpose; yet it may be miswritten for _nio-khoak-ěshbe_, in which _khoak_ is the element “two”, with a doubled sign of addition, namely, the prefix _nio-_, already explained, and the suffix _-ěshbe_, also explained above. In the next two the element denoting “ten” is expressed, with _umai-javíc_ and _maga habick_ as the second part, both meaning “two added”. The last (8) _vaike_ is a highly modified and probably misapprehended form of an earlier _havik-ěsbe_, “two added”, with a subaudition of the numeral “ten”.

TWENTY

_Serian_

A. ŭntç-kō´k
B. eansl-koch
C. kanlχ´ kookχ´
D. taul jaukl

_Yuman_

6. arábavik-takavuts-havík
9. arháp-havik takadútca havík
23. chepam-ẖooak
22. guwákě wáwi
18. hěwakě buwáwi
19. huáka huávi
1. huwāka huwāva
III. naganna agannapa inimbal demuejueg=“las manos y los piés”
3. sahhoke was poppe
8. sahoaich sahocki hawaich
13. sauhook ahoowik
14. selgh-hoág
4. shahóque ahabick
20. shahahjóc ahah javíc (j=χ)
5. shaχúha χawík
2. uake-uave
10. vava-hovak
11. wába-hoa´g
21. womása howŭk

The four examples of the Serian numeral “twenty” are merely combinations of the terms _kō´k_, _koch_, _kookχ´_ and _jaukl_ (for _χaukl)_, all cognate forms, meaning “two”, and the forms _ŭntç_, _eansl_, _kanlχ´_, and _taul_, all cognate and signifying “ten”.

The Yuman expressions denoting “twenty” are all, with two exceptions, combinations the dialectic elements denotive of “ten” and the forms of the numeral “two”, which have been treated elsewhere in their proper places. The two exceptions are (III) the Cochimi, which signifies “all the fingers and toes”, and (21) the Santa Catalina, which here presents what appears to be a new term for “ten”, for the final word _howŭk_ is the numeral “two”. These analyses do not show relationship between the Serian and the Yuman terms.

THIRTY

_Serian_

A. ŭntç-kōpka
B. eans’l-kapka
C.
D.

_Yuman_

6. arabavik-takavuts-hamók
9. arhap-havik-takadútca hamok
23. chepam ẖoomiak
18. hěmukě buwáwi
1. humuku huwava
11. hwáwa hamōk
8. sahoke-hamuck
13. sauhook-ahoomook
20. shahahjóc ahah jamúc (j=χ)
4. shahóque ahamóck
5. shahúha χamúk
14. selgh-hamuk
19. muku-ávi
2. moke-uave
10. vava-hamok
21. womás hamŭ´k

FORTY

_Serian_

A. ŭntç-ksō´k
B. eans’l-scoch
C.
D.

_Yuman_

9. arhap-havik takadútca tcimpap
23. chepam misnok
2. hoba-uave.
18. hopachě buwáwi
19. hopadsh-uávi
1. hopätia wáva
11. hwáwa hoopá
13. sauhook wauchoopap gishbab
20. shahahjóc ahah tseumpáp
5. shaχúka sumpáp
10. vava-hōpa
21. womas ahopá

FIFTY

_Serian_

A. ŭntç-kóitum
B. eansl-kovat´hom
C.
D.

_Yuman_

9. arhap-havik takadútca çarhabk
14. aselghakai
18. hěräpě buwáwi
11. hwáwa ftápa (Gilbert)
23. mesig quinquedit sol-chepam
13. sauhook wa sarap
19. sěráp uávi
20. shahahjóc ahah saaráp
1. thěrapa wuwáva
10. vava hatábuk
21. womas aseräpa
2. satabe-uave.

COMPARATIVE LISTS OF SERIAN AND YUMAN CONCEPTUAL TERMS

SERIAN

_Man_ _Woman_ _People_, _Indians_

A. kŭ´tŭmm A. kmámm A. kuⁿ-kák
B. éketam B. ékemam B. komkak
C. ktam C. kmam C. komkak
D. {tam (ktam) D. {kmam, kamujik D.
{tamuk; ktamuk (pl.) {kamykij (pl.)

YUMAN

III. tama 19. ěpá věχí II. demansú=“Indian”
IV. {tamá, tämmá, tammá 3. nisúke 24. epái
{=“homo”
{uami=“man, male”
II. delmá 16. nechuck 26. ipai=“Indian”
I. wanyu-ami=“young 17. gechak 15. ipaye
man”
3. apah 5. {senyeák 11. upáh, ûp-ă´
{senyeáks
19_a_. ěpá 12. seenyack I. {maha=“people”
{mahati=“Indian”
4. epá-che (pl.) 8. siniake 23. meẖale
13. epa 20. siñaacca 17. m’tee-pai
12. {epáh 4. sin’yaáke-che 12. ml-épáie
{epátch (pl.) (pl.)
7. thinyeahka 7. peepa
9. {çinyiäk 13. peepa-chamal
{çinyiáktc (pl.)
8. pipachi-taik=“many
men”
17. epa 24. sinquahín 9. pipate (pl. of man)
8. ipa 24a. ěssin 20. piipatse-pallenám
2. {ipa 15. sîin. syn 16. tepitetchetleowah
{ipa gŭli=“Indian”
5. {ipás (s doubtful) 27. sin 5. {matsh-tshámak
{ipátsh (pl.) {matsh-tshámk
19_b_. pá, pá´h 26. siñ 24_a_. ipai=“Indian”
10. pa 14. sing
18. {pa pa-hěmí=“large 6. hanya-aga
{man”
21. pa hŭrmí=“large man” 13. suyaka
22. pa-hami=“large man” 10. pogii
7. peepa, pé-paa 11. {pŭkí (Gilbert)
{pûkehi
9. {pipa pipate (pl.) 18. pukí
11. ŭpā´ (Gilbert) 22. peke
15. ecoúch 1. kweí iníniga=
“squaw, wife”
16. ecotche 2. make, ouidima=
“Indian woman”
14. igutch 21. měbĭsí
24_a_. ikute 23. kokoa
26. ikuĭtch ikwits I. wanki
27. ikwĭtc IV. wakoe (Laymon)
20. curacca wuctu, wuetu
23. kimai (Laymon)
24. equitchquahín huägin=“mulier”
II. huisin

Those philologists who have classed the Seri tongue as a dialect of the Yuman stock have laid great stress on the alluring phonetic accordance, supposedly indicative of genetic relationship, between the Laymon (and probably Cochimi) _tamá_ or _tammá_, “man (homo)”, and the Serian _kŭ´tŭmm_, _ktam_ or _eketam_, possibly of the same signification—i. e., “man (homo)”, rather than “man (vir)”; but the accompanying comparative list of vocables purporting to denote “man (homo)” discloses the significant fact that _tamá_ (_tammá_) belongs only to the Laymon, and (probably) the Cochimi dialects. In Mr Bartlett’s Cochimi record, he wrote _delmá_, “man, hombre”, and _guami_ (Spanish _g_), “husband”—that is, “male person”. From certain Laymon texts with interlinear translations in Buschmann’s “Die Spuren der aztekischen Sprache”, etc., the following forms of the vocables in question have been extracted: _tammá_, “man (homo, Mensch)”; _tamma-butel_, “this man”; _uami-butel_, “this man, this male person”; _wami-jua_, “man (vir, Mann), male person”; _wakoe-butel_, “this woman”; _gui-wuctu-jua_, “his woman”; _whanu_, “small, young, a child”; _whanu-wami-jua_, “a small, or young, male person”, perhaps “a boy”. Now, _wanju_ or _wanyu_, “young”, _wáhki_, “woman” (_-aki_ in _wanju-aki_, “girl”—i. e., “young woman”); _ouami_, “(my) husband”, correctly, “(my) male person”; _ouĭqua_, “(my) wife”, evidently a form of _wáhki_, “woman”, are all Cochimi vocables. Dr Gabb, in his Cochimi vocabulary, did not record the presumptively correct term denoting “man”; for the word which he has written, _wanyuami_, and which he has translated “man”, really signifies, “young male person”, rather than “man (homo)”. This is unfortunate, because in Mr Bartlett’s Cochimi, _delmá_ is rendered “man (homo)”, and the Cochimi of Padre Clavigero has _tamá_, “man”, and the Laymon, _tamá_, _tammá_, or _tämmá_, “man”, and there is seemingly no absolutely satisfactory method of ascertaining whether the _l_ of Mr Bartlett’s _delmá_, “man”, is genetic or not. But as the Laymon and the Cochimi are apparently cognate dialects, it is probable that the form _delmá_ of Bartlett’s Cochimi and the _tamá_ or _tämmá_ of the Laymon and the Cochimi of Padre Clavigero are cognate vocables. The part of the terms which the two dialects have in common is the final and usually accented _-má_; in other words, _-má_ is the common conceptual element in the vocables _delmá_ and _tamá_. This of course rests on the presumption that _tamá_ and _delmá_ are compound terms, having probably genetic relationship. The following facts may aid in discovering the lexica constituting the elements of the two words in question, and these, it is seen, are _-má_, _del-_, and _ta-_. In Dr W. M. Gabb’s record of Cochimi words, collected by him in the vicinity of San Borja and Santa Gertrudis about the “center of the peninsula” of Lower California, the term “Indian” is represented by _maha-ti_, and “people” by _maha_. On the same schedule with the Cochimi Dr Gabb recorded a vocabulary of the Kiliwee, dwelling 150 miles “further north” at and near San Quentin. In this dialect, which is Yuman, the word “Indian” is rendered by _kimai_, and “people” by _meẖa-le_ (preferably _meχale_[335]). The apparently genetic accordance between the Kiliwee word for “people” and the Cochimi terms denoting “Indian” and “people” is brought into stronger light by a comparison of the terms for “warrior”; in the Cochimi, _mac̲h̲-karai_ (_maχ´-karai_), in the Kiliwee, _maẖk-pkátai_ (_maχk-pkátai_). The unquestioned kinship between these two dialects warrants the inference that these two compound expressions, denotive of the same thing and possessing at least one common element, _maχ-_ or _maχ´-_, must accord approximately at least, in the signification of their heteromorphic constituents.

[335] In Dr Gabb’s alphabet, an underscored _c̲h̲_ occurs, which, he states, sounds “like soft German ‘ch’ as in ‘ich’”, and also an underscored _ẖ_, which is, he says, “heavily aspirated”. For convenience the character χ has been substituted for both these sounds, except that for the former it is accented thus χ´.

In the Kiliwee _pah-kute_ signifies “a chief”, from _e-pa_, “Indian”, hence “man” (primitively) and _kute_ for (_k_)_e-tai_, “large, great”, hence “old”, found in such expressions as _sal-kootai_, “thumb”, literally “large finger”, and _pah-tai_, “old”, but literally “old man”. So the name for a chief may be rendered freely “the elder person; the old man (the wise man)”. The Cochimi term _mac̲h̲-ka-é_, as written by Dr Gabb, denotes “far”, while _mac̲h̲-i-kang-i-n̲g̲a_ means “near”. These vocables may preferably be written thus, _maχ´-kaé_ and _maχ´-kañ-iña_. The ending _-iña_ is a privative flexion or suffix in Cochimi, forming derivatives with meanings directly adverse to those of the primals; so the literal signification of _maχ´-kañ-iña_ is “not far”, hence “near”; but in _maχ´-kaé_ the final _-kaé_ is the adjective “large, great”, having here an intensive function signifying approximately “more”, while _maχ´-_ is evidently a form of the proximate pronominative found in the terms “thou” and “ye” in this group of languages. In the Laymon _kahal ka_, “water large (is)”, for a “sea or stream of water”, _ka_ signifies “large, great”; and the Cochimi _kättenyi_, “few, not much”, is literally _kätte-_ for (_k_)_etai_, “large, great, much, many”, and _-iñi_ the privative denoting “not”. And the Laymon _metañ_, “many, much”, is evidently from _m-_ for _ma_ (a proximate pronominative), _eta_ for the Cochimi _etai_, “large, great, much, many”, and the final _-ñ_. Compare Bartlett’s _modo_, “all, todos”, and _modoliñi_, “many, much”. Such are some of the forms of the adjective signifying “great, large, much, many”. There is also in the Cochimi an intensive _pa_, _ibal_, _ibá_, which signifies “very”. This explains the presence of the _p-_ sound in the term _maχk-pkátai_, the Kiliwee for “warrior”.

It has thus been shown that a probable connection exists between the Cochimi terms _maha_, “people”, and _maha-ti_, “Indian”, on the one hand, and the _maχ-_, inferentially signifying “man” in the Cochimi and Kiliwee names for “warrior”, _maχ´-karai_ and _maχk-pkátai_, and the _meχa-_ in the Kiliwee _meχa-le_, “people”, on the other. The significance of the initial _ta-_ in _tämmá_ (_tamá_, _tammá_, _tamal_, _tammalá_) seems to be that of a definitive pronominative; it is found in the Cochimi of Dr Gabb and in the Laymon. Dr Gabb recorded in his vocabulary _ta-ip_, “good”, but _ta-ip-ena_, “bad”, the final _-ena_ being the characteristic Cochimi privative suffix; elsewhere written _-iñi_. So it would seem that the stem is _-ip_, meaning “good, desirable”. In Kiliwee _aχok_ (Dr Gabb’s _aẖok_) signifies “flesh, meat”, while _aχok-m-gai_ denotes “deer”, literally “good, desirable meat”, in which _m-gai_ signifies “good, desirable”; it is probably connected with the term _ka_, “great”, and its variants noted above, and so may also denote “abundance”. Under the word “love” Dr Gabb has _m’gai-yip_, the free translation of which should read “greatly desirable; abundantly good, well”. Thus _-ip_, or _-yip_, signifies “desirable, good, pleasing to the sense”; in Laymon likewise the initial _-ta_ is sometimes wanting, as in _wayp-mang_, “good (is)”, as distinguished from _tahipo-mang_, “good (is)”. The final _-mang_ (_=mañ_) is a term apparently denoting “to exist, to live”, and is possibly cognate with the _má_ (Kiliwee _me_) in the words discussed above.

This, it would appear, is the origin of the _má_ in _tamá_, “man”. The individual character of the initial _ta_ is suggested in what has already been said in reference to its absence from such vocables as _wayp-mang_ and _m’gai-yip_, in which the _wayp_ and the _yip_ are identical with the _ip_ in _ta-ip_, “good”. This term _ta_ appears as the relative “that” under the form _te_. It also appears as a prefix in the Cochimi and Laymon numeral “one” and in the adjective _te-junoey_, “a few”; also in the adjective _de-muejueg_, “all”; and again in the peculiar numeral “one”, namely _du-juenidi_.

Such appears to be the analysis of the Cochimi and Laymon _tamá_, “man”. The form of it recorded by Mr Bartlett, _del-má_, “man”, compared with his _de-ma-nsú_, “Indian”, is seemingly a valid confirmation of the foregoing derivation, because this _l_ in _de-l-má_ is probably identical with the final _l_ or _lá_ in _tama-l_ and _tamma-lá_, “man”, cited above. In the Cochimi for “water”, _ca-l_, its true character is partly seen; _cal oso_ signifies “river”, but in _caa-pa-l_ (Gabb’s _kaχ-pa-ra_), “sea”, it becomes a suffix, the element _pa_ signifying “much, great”, and Dr Gabb’s form shows that in the dialect he recorded its form is _ra_; again in _cal ka_, “lake”, literally “large water”, it is a suffix. It appears again in Mr Bartlett’s _del-mag_, “light”, as compared with Dr Gabb’s _ma-ahra_ (=_maah-ra_), “fire”; it appears evident that the _mag_ of _del-mag_ and the _maah_ of _maah-ra_ are cognate, so that _de-l_ is here found as a prefix, as it is in Mr Bartlett’s _de-l-má_, “man”. Thus it is that _delmá_ and _dema-nsú_, “Indian”, of Mr Bartlett and _tamá_ and _tammalá_ of Hervas, Duflot de Mofras, and Miguel del Barco are cognate.

It accordingly appears that the assumed linguistic relationship between the forms discussed above and the Serian _kŭ’tŭmm_ (_ktam_, _tam_), “man”, is very improbable, because there are no evidences nor data indicative that the Serian forms have had a common linguistic tradition with the Cochimi and Kiliwee forms discussed above. It seems proper, therefore, to reject such assumed relationship between the Yuman and the Serian vocables in this comparison.

The comparative list of names purporting to signify “woman” in both the Serian and the Yuman tongues reveals not a single phonetic or lexic accordance that may even suggest linguistic kinship between the two groups of vocables.

The comparative list of terms purporting to signify “people” and “Indian” in the Serian and Yuman groups of languages exhibits, in a manner similar to those already examined, the same decisive lack of phonetic accordance between the vocables compared.

SERIAN

_Head _ _Hair_ _Nose_

A. aʰleht (aʰleht) ŭŭf
B. ih’lit ina=“feather” (?) îfe
C. ill’it ill’it kopt’no hif
D. obeka=“down”

Yuman

2. ho (and “face”) 1. kawáwa 3. aho
17. ẖo 11. cowäwä 16. ho, chinattuksah
11. hoo 18. kuwâ´wa 15. h’ho
19. {u 21. kâwâ´wá 13. ẖo
{hu
1. huú 2. {kovaŭva 17. ẖo
{govava (Loew)
10. huu 19. kwáwa 21. hó
4. chukschâssese 22. kwawe 20. ijó (j=χ)
8. ichucksa 10. koau 4. hoó-che (pl. ?)
7. chookk’sa 7. mókora (Gibbs) 7. mee-hoo=“thy nose”
13. chookoosá 9. mokór̃a 12. {ee-hóo
{eho-tche (pl.)
6. tchuksa 6. mogora 2. hu
9. tcúksa 8. amacora 18. hu
20. edzukshá 7. mem-mukkorra (Mowry) 19. hú
12a. ecou-tsucherówo 12b. ocono 22. hu
14. iltá 4. eéche 6. ihu
3. {itchama 12a. eětche (pl. ?) 8. ihu
{mocorre
(Peabody;=“hair”?)
12b. oom-whelthe 20. ee 9. {hihú
{hihúv-tca (pl.)
24. huch’lta 5. eès 14. khu
15. hulchtekamo 23. neesmok 5. iχu-úsh (pl.)
16. tenahcumoh 3. {amawach 23. epe
{mowh’l
18. kûmpaiya kûwâ´wa 15. hulchsta 24. hon’yapá
21. kapai 24. huch’lmo 11. yaya (Gilbert)
yaiivă (Renshawe)
5. kwisásh 17. ẖ’lemo 10. yaiya
23. ne-ee 14. khaltá 1. yáyō
I. epok 16. hetltar (r silent) I. vic̲h̲pyuk
II. gupir 13. m’aeae II. huichil
III. agoppi I. epok 25. ah`u (=aχu)
25. hŭsta-kwarŭr, II. lagubú 26. a`hō; h`ō (= aχō)
=“scalp”
26. măwhl 25. hŭsta 27. eh`ū (=eχū)
27. h`l-ta (=χlta) 26. hl-ta 26. h`o (χo)=“beak, bill”
24_a_. ă-hú 27. h`l-ta (=χlta) 24_a_. ă-hú=“beak, bill”
24_a_. h`alta (=χalta)

This comparison of the Seri and Yuman terms for “head”, to ascertain linguistic relationship, seems barren of any but a negative result. It is true that there is an apparent resemblance between the Seri and the Diegueño terms, and a still more doubtful one between the Seri and the Kutchan. It is significant that the twenty-odd other Yuman dialects employ for “head” an entirely different term. The kinship of the Seri term to either the Kutchan or the Diegueño is therefore nothing more than a possibility, and it seems safe to reject it. The phonetic discordances, and the fact that there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Diegueño term was ever prevalent in the other Yuman dialects, warrant this rejection.

The following analysis may be of service here. A careful comparison of the Diegueño terms for “head”, and “hair” indicates that the form (14) _ilta_, “head”, is very probably a shortened _khalta_, “hair”. In the Diegueño, Santa Isabella, and Mesa Grande vocabularies Mr Henshaw recorded several names for “hair” and “head” which may serve to aid in the explanation of the words in the following comparative list. In his Diegueño record _lěmĭs_ and _lĭmi_, variants evidently of a common original, stand for “hair, feathers, skin, and fish scales”, as in the entries _haltau lěmĭs_, “rabbit skin”, _kasau lěmĭs_, “fish scales”, _kŭkwaip lěmĭs_, “deerskin”, _lěmĭs_, “feathers” and “hair” of animals; and also _yiu-lěmĭs_, “eyebrow”, literally, “eye hair”, and _ā-lĭmi_, “beard”, literally, “mouth hair”, in which _yiu_ for _iuu_ means “eye” and _ā_ for _yau_, “mouth”. In his Mesa Grande vocabulary, Mr Henshaw recorded _h`lta_ for both “head” and “hair”; in his Hawi Rancheria vocabulary he wrote _mă-whl_ for “head”, and _h`lta _for “hair”; and lastly, in his Santa Isabella record _hŭsta_ means “hair”, _hŭsta-kwarŭr_ is written for “head” (literally, “hair skin”, meaning “the scalp”); and _ŭstú-kŭmō_ is rendered “skull”. Thus, _h`lta, lěmĭs_, and _hŭsta_ are terms denoting “hair, fur, skin, feathers, and fish scales”. Yet it is possible that _hŭsta_ is a softened and ill-pronounced cognate of _h`lta_. In Corbusier’s Yavapai vocabulary “eyebrow” is written _yuh-kělěme_, and in Dr White’s Tonto word list _yŭ-gŭlma_, both signifying literally “eye hair”. It is apparently safe, therefore, to regard the element _-kělěme_ or _-gŭlma_ of these two dialects as cognate with the _lěmĭs_ (_lĭmi_) noticed above. In his Mohave record Mr Corbusier renders his entry _himíç_, “eyebrow”, literally, “eye hair”; and in the H`taäm or San Tomaseño by Dr Gabb “beard” is written _āh-lamĭse_, literally, “mouth hair”. “Hair” is written _helt’h-yee-mōh_, seemingly “head hair”, for “forehead” is rendered by _het’l-ŏmȳ_, in which _helt’h-_ or _het’l_ seems to be the term denotive of “head”; but in Lieutenant Mowry’s Diegueño this term, which is there written _hetltar_ (for _hetltā_) signifies “hair”. In Ten Kate’s Maricopa, “beard” is written _ya-womis_, literally “mouth hair”, _-womis_ being clearly a variant of _himiç_, which is but a variant of _lĭ-mĭth_ and of _-kělěme_ noticed above. In the Santa Isabella, Mr Henshaw wrote “feathers” _lĭ-mĭth_.

COMPARATIVE LIST OF DIEGUEÑO AND OTHER YUMAN NAMES FOR “HEAD”, “HAIR”

_Head_ _Hair_

14. iltá khaltá
15. hu-lchte-kamo hu-lchsta
16. tenah-cumoh hetltar (= hetltā)
24. hu-ch’lta hu-ch’lmo
24_a_. ăhú (also h`al-ta (= χal-ta)
“beak, bill”)
17. ẖo (= χo) ẖ’lemo (= χlemo)
27. h`l-ta (= χl-ta) h`l-ta (= χl-ta)
26. mă-whl ẖ`o (= χo) hl-ta
(also “beak, bill”)
25. hŭsta? hŭsta

It seems clear, furthermore, that _iltá_ (14) is merely a curtailed example of _khaltá_ (14), for it is clear that this _iltá_ is a cognate with the _h`lta_ (27), the initial _h`_-sound of which, Mr Henshaw says, represents a rough guttural utterance (represented herein by the character χ). In (27) of the comparative list _h`lta_, expresses both “head” and “hair”, thus completing the circuit and making _iltá_ cognate with _khaltá_, since it is plain that _h`alta_ (_χalta_) of 24_a_, _hlta_ of 26, and _h`l-ta_ of 27, the initial sound in each being, as shown above, a rough guttural are related to _khaltá_. The term _hu-ch’lmo_ (24) is a compound of _hu-_, “head”, and _-ch’lmo_, an evident cognate with the element _-gŭlma_ or _-kělěme_ ( _=kělěmĭs_) noticed above, denoting “hair”; hence, the combination signifies “hair of the head”. In like manner the H`taäm or San Tomaseño form (17) _ẖ’lemo_ may be explained. In this dialect _ẖo_ (_=χo_) signifies “head”, and an original _ẖolemo_ (_=χo-lěmĭs_), signifying “hair of the head”, became contracted to the form in question, namely, _ẖ’lemo_. In the Santa Isabella record of Mr Henshaw _hŭsta_ signifies “hair”, but _hŭsta-kwarŭr_ is given for “head”, while _ŭs-tŭk-ŭm-ō_ is translated “skull”; the last expression should have been written _(h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō_. Under the caption “robe of rabbit skins”, _h`kwĭr_ is found, but under “skin” in “Parts of the Body” of his schedule, _`nyakwăt_ (26) and _n’kwěr_ (25) are found, both meaning “my skin”; Corbusier’s Mohave record has _himát-makwil_ rendered “skin of man”, but meaning “skin of the body”, _himát_ signifying “body”, and _makwil_, “skin”. The Mesa Grande term for skin is given as _lĭmĭs_, a vocable which has already been discussed. So it must be that the foregoing _hŭsta-kwarŭr_ signifies “skin of the hair” or “skin of the head”, if _hŭsta_ is also a synonym for “head”. The final _-ŭr_ in the compound in question is due to the misapprehension of the rolled or trilled _r_-sound with which the term for skin terminates. The element _-kŭmō_ of the vocable _(h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō_, rendered “skull”, is also a factor in the Diegueño terms for “head” in numbers (15) and (16) of the comparative list; so that it is highly probable that these terms signify “skull” rather than “head”. And, lastly, it is equally probable that the expression (18) _kumpaiya kûwâwâ_ signifies “hair of the whole head (skull)” rather than “head” only; for the initial _kum-_ is presumptively the cognate of the forms _-cumōh_ and _-kŭmō_, denoting in the compounds already noted “skull”, while _-paiya_ signifies “all”, and _kûwâwâ_ “hair”. There appears to be a relationship between the terms for “head” and “hair” in (12_b_) _oomwhelthe_, “head”, (3) _amawhach_ and _mowh´l_, “hair”, and (26) _mă-whl_, “head”. The explanation of the term _hu-lchsta_, (15), denoting “hair”, is probably to be found in its resolution into _hu_ (_χu_), “head”, and _lchsta_ for a form of _hŭsta_, “hair”, discussed above; the term signifies, therefore, “hair of the head”. In like manner _huch´lta_ (24), rendered “head” there, seems rather to mean “hair of the head”, by its reduction to _hu_, “head”, and _ch´lta_, for a form of _khalta_ (= _χalta_), “hair”.

The Serian variants of the term denoting “head”, are respectively (A) _aʰleht_. (B) _ih´lit_, and (C) _ill´it_. These forms certainly have no kinship with the Yuman terms discussed above; they have a totally alien aspect. The Serian terms for “hair” are respectively (A) _aʰleht_, (B) _ina_ (“feather” rather than “hair”), (C) _ill´it kopt´no_, and (D) _obeke_, and while the last has an aspect foreign to the other terms classed as Serian, none of the vocables appear to offer ground upon which to predicate relationship between the Yuman and the Serian. For a further explanation of _obeke_ turn to the discussion of “tooth”.

The comparative list of Serian and Yuman names for the “nose” reveals no evidence of linguistic relationship between the two groups; but an inspection of the Yuman lists for “head”, “hair”, and “nose”, exhibits a close connection between a number of the names for “head”, “nose”, and “beak, bill”.

SERIAN

_Eye_ _Face _To see_

A. mĭtto aiyen
B. íto îyén ikehom
C. hittovχs (pl. ?) hien (in hienkipkue)= okta; χ´ookta
“cheeks”
D. iktoj (for iktoχ´)(pl. ?) llen

YUMAN

4. edóche (pl.) edóche eyûuk
7. {hidho {hidho {hissâmk (far), héyūk (near)
{meet´dho=“thy eye” {meethoownya=“they face” {ekwuo
6. ído hisamk, i-údo[336]
8. idosaca ilo halquack
9. hiço, hiçotca (pl.) hiço samk=“I see it”
isampotc=“I do not see”
12a. edotche-ée (pl.) odótche, eeyu o-ook
13. medok=“thy eye” meya eyu
20. edhó edo-cuámcoba iyúc
21. yú yú
2. yû ho (and “head”) ó-o
22. yu yu
19. uú
11. yu, úh (Gilbert) ethool, tialbûgû
18. yuh yu ahámi
11. yuh` (Renshawe) ethoól
1. yú-u páya
10. yu-u yuu akhámuk
I. yupicha (pl.?) yupi gir
11. ye-baká yabi amigi
3. agu, ihu iuabó ouwerk
23. ayu neẖuẖa sau
14. hiyéu, i-ído iyib
17. yeoo yeoo oom
15. yiou alt´hwá ewiouch
16. eeyou eeoh ohum
12_b_. eeyu-suneyao
24. yeou kewú
III. gadey
5. woyoès idosh, yaχelemísh ashäämk
25. hiiyu hiiyu
26. iyiu iyiu
27. iyiu iyiu

[336] This signifies, “let us see”; Dr Loew also writes, _iyó-ok_, “to see you”.

Eight of the terms for “eye” in the yuman word lists are _ído_, _hidho_, or their variants, in five Yuman dialects, Maricopa, Mohave, Hummockhave, Kutchan, and M´mat (virtually in but three, for Hummockhave is but a subdialect of Mohave, and M´mat of Kutchan), and the remaining twenty-one examples are from an entirely different stem or base which is apparently connected with a verb “to see,” one of the forms of which is _eyûuk_ (4), _héyuk_ (7), and _iyó-ok_ (6); the form _ído_ and its several variants is seemingly connected with _iúdo_ (6), “let us see”, apparently an imperative form, in a manner similar to the connection between _yú_ (2), “eye”, and its variants, and the verb form _eyûuk_ just cited.

It will be seen from the table that _okta_ and _χ´ookta_ (or _χ´ukta_) are the Serian forms of the verb “to see”. The form _iktoj_ or _iktoχ´_, “eyes”, recorded by Sr Tenochio, is the nominal form of that verb, the final _j_ or _χ´_ being, as it would appear, the plural ending. The _-vχs_ final of M Pinart’s record as distinguished from Professor McGee’s _mĭtto_ and Mr Bartlett’s _íto_ and approximated in Sr Tenochio’s _iktoχ´_, is evidently plural in function. While the Serian material bearing on this question is, indeed, very meager, it nevertheless seems proper to regard the apparent accordance between the Serian term for “eye (eyes)” and the Yuman vocable, _ído_ and its variants, of limited prevalency, signifying “eye,” as fortuitous rather than genetic.

The comparative list of the Serian and the Yuman names for the “face” shows no relationship between the two groups of languages.

SERIAN

_Tongue_ _Tooth, teeth_ _Foot_

A. âps´s A. atá`st A. tâhŏtᵏˡ
B. íp´l B. itast B. itóva
C. hipχl C. hitast C. ittovaχ
D. D. D. itoba

YUMAN

II. abilg 4. edoóche 3. amea (Peabody)
12.{epulch 12. aredóche 13. mee
{epailche
4. epalch 6. idó 17. mee
10. ipal 8. ido 11. mi (Gilbert)
11. ipā´l (Gilbert) 5. hidoö´s 19. mi
21. ipä´l 9. hidhó (hi¢ó) 21. mĭ´
20. ipáll 7. meet’dho 10. mie
8. ipala 13. medok 18. mĭh
2. pala 20. edháw 11. mĭnh (Renshawe)
6. ipaylya 11. yâ (Gilbert) 1. míi
I. hapara 19. yâ 24. emil
18. hipä´l 21. yâ´ 15. emil-yepiyen
5. hipálsh 11. yō (Renshawe) 4. emésh
9. hipälý 2. yo 8. eme-culepe
13. mepal 18. yoh 23. emepah
7. meepahlya, hípala 1. yóo 12. emetch-slip aslap-yah
IV. mabela 10. yoo 20. eme-guzlapa-zl´áp
15. anapalch 17. yeow 16. emmee
24. anapalch 16. eow (ow long) 6. ime
14. anepáilkh 23. eau 3. imi-coushu
16. anpatl 14. iyao 14. i-mil
17. ẖenapail 3. iyahui 9. himé
23. neẖapal 15. iyáou 5. himís
3. inyapatch 24. iyaou 7. meemee
1. yupáu 11. foea 2.{nanyo
{nanû (White)
11. yupäl (Renshawe) I. hastaá I. ma-nyakkoyan (cf.
ma-nyak, “leg”)
IV. agannapa (cf. “leg”,
“hand”)