DEMOTIC CHARACTERS (continued 5)
Reading edition
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
9a. 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
9b. 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”, intlash “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) {tamuk; ktamuk (pl.) D. {kmam, kamujik {kamykij (pl.) D.
YUMAN
III. tama 19. ěpá věχí II. demansú=“Indian”
IV. {tamá, tämmá, tammá” {=“homo” {uami=“man, male” 3. nisúke 24. epái
II. delmá 16. nechuck 26. ipai=“Indian”
I. wanyu-ami=“young man” 17. gechak 15. ipaye
3. apah 5. {senyeák {senyeáks 11. upáh, ûp-ă´
19a. 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 {epátch (pl.) 4. sin’yaáke-che (pl.) 12. ml-épáie
7. thinyeahka 7. peepa
9. {çinyiäk {çinyiáktc (pl.) 13. peepa-chamal
8. pipachi-taik=“many men”
17. epa 24. sinquahín 9. pipate (pl. of man)
8. ipa 24a. ěssin 20. piipatse-pallenám
2. {ipa {ipa gŭli=“Indian” 15. sîin. syn 16. tepitetchetleowah
5. {ipás (s doubtful) {ipátsh (pl.) 27. sin 5. {matsh-tshámak {matsh-tshámk
19b. pá, pá´h 26. siñ 24a. ipai=“Indian”
10 pa 14. sing
18. {pa pa-hěmí=“large man” 6. hanya-aga
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
24a. ikute 23. kokoa
26. ikuĭtch ikwits I. wanki
27. ikwĭtc IV. wakoe (Laymon) wuctu, wuetu (Laymon) huägin=“mulier”
20. curacca II. huisin
23. kimai
24. equitchquahín
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 meχale335). 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.
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 {hu 21. kâwâ´wá 13. ẖo
1. huú 2. {kovaŭva {govava (Loew) 17. ẖo
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 {mocorre (Peabody;=“hair”?) 12a. eětche (pl. ?) 8. ihu
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 {mowh’l 23. epe
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, =“scalp” II. lagubú 26. a`hō; h`ō (= aχō)
26. măwhl 25. hŭsta 27. eh`ū (=eχū)
27. h`l-ta (=χlta) 26. hl-ta 26. h`o (χo)=“beak, bill”
24a. ă-hú 27. h`l-ta (=χlta) 24a. ă-hú=“beak, bill”
24a. 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
5. hu-lchte-kamo hu-lchsta
16. tenah-cumoh hetltar (= hetltā)
24. hu-ch’lta hu-ch’lmo
24a. ăhú (also “beak, bill”) h`al-ta (= χal-ta)
17. ẖo (= χo) ẖ’lemo (= χlemo)
27. h`l-ta (= χl-ta) h`l-ta (= χl-ta)
26. mă-whl ẖ`o (= χo) (also “beak, bill”) hl-ta
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 24a, 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 (12b) 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)= “cheeks” okta; χ´ookta
D. iktoj (for iktoχ´)(pl. ?) llen
YUMAN
4. edóche (pl.) edóche eyûuk
7. {hidho {meet´dho=“thy eye” {hidho {meethoownya=“they face” {hissâmk (far), héyūk (near) {ekwuo
6. ído hisamk, i-údo336
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
12b. eeyu-suneyao
24. yeou kewú
III. gadey
5. woyoès idosh, yaχelemísh ashäämk
25. hiiyu hiiyu
26. iyiu iyiu
27. iyiu iyiu
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 {epailche 12. aredóche 13. mee
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”)
After a careful examination of the collated lists of names purporting to signify “tongue” in the Serian and Yuman languages it will be seen that the relationship conjectured to exist between the two groups is fortuitous or coincidental rather than real. The guttural rough breathing χ preceding the l sound in M Pinart’s record, and indicated by an apostrophe in Mr Bartlett’s spelling and by an s in Professor McGee’s orthography, is clearly wanting in all the Yuman terms cited. Were there linguistic relationship between the two groups of terms here compared it would seem that this sound should find a place in one or another of the long list of Yuman terms, notably divergent among themselves. It is possible, if not probable, that the final l, la, or ra of the Yuman terms is not a part of the stem; but this would not affect the want of accordance noted above.
An analytic investigation of the comparative list of vocables purporting to signify “tooth” in the Serian and the Yuman languages discloses no evidence of genetic relationship between them. Those who classify the Serian speech as a dialect of the Yuman cite the Yuman ido, hidhó (the eh-doh of Lieutenant Bergland), signifying “tooth”, as one of the vocables indicating a genetic relationship between the two groups of languages. The comparison is made between the ido, hidhó, and eh-doh cited above and the close variants of the Serian ata`st. An inspection of the comparative list of names for “tooth” shows that this particular Yuman form is confined to the Mohave, Maricopa, and Kutchan dialects (for the M’mat, which also employs this term, is nearly identical with the Kutchan), and that the remainder of the Yuman list of dialects has, with a single exception, an entirely different word; this exception being the Cochimi, which independently has another. The Yuman group, then, has three radically different words purporting to signify “tooth”.
The Serian vocable for “tooth” is a compound term, being composed of elements denoting “mouth” and “stone”. In the Seri word-collection of Professor McGee attě´nn signifies “mouth”; atta-moχ, “lower lip”, possibly “down about the mouth”; attahk, “saliva” (“water of the mouth”); attahkt, “the chin”; takōps, “upper lip”; attěms, “beard”; ata`st, “tooth”; and a`st, “rock, stone”. Mr Bartlett, in his vocabulary, recorded îten, “mouth”; ita-mocken, “beard”; and hast, “stone”. M Pinart, in his Seri word list, wrote hiten, “mouth”; hita-mokken, “beard”; and hast, “stone”. Lastly, Sr Tenochio wrote iten, “mouth”, and ahste, “stone”, in ahsteka “large, high stone, rock”. Sr Tenochio also recorded obeke, “hair, down (pelo)”. One of the peculiarities of the sounds represented by the letters m and b is that in many instances they grade one into the other. There is here, seemingly, a case in point. The moχ of Professor McGee, the mocken of Mr Bartlett, the mokken of M. Pinart, and the obeke of Sr Tenochio appear to be cognates. Substituting m for the b in obeke, omeke results, which is approximately the moχ, mocken, mokken cited above. Hence, hita-mokken and its congeners, it seems, signify “down of the mouth”. In attahk, “saliva”, the element combining with attě (for it is plain that the final -n is dropped in compounding) is `ahk or `akh, “water”, so that this compound signifies, literally, “water of the mouth”. These analyses show that attě´nn, iten, and hiten, dropping the final n-sound, unite with other elements in the form attě, ite, and hite, respectively. Now, these, in combination with a`st or ast, “stone”, become, respectively, atta`st, itast, and hitast, the forms of the word for “tooth” recorded by Professor McGee, Mr Bartlett, and M Pinart, in the order given. The Seri name for “tooth” signifies, then, literally “stone of the mouth” or “stones of the mouth”. This analysis demonstrates the lack of relationship between the Serian and Yuman names for tooth.
The comparative schedules of names for “foot” in the Serian and the Yuman languages show no accordances of a phonetic character tending to show any genetic relationship between the two groups compared.
SERIAN
Arm Hand Finger(s) Thumb Fingernail(s)
A. mĭ`noŭllt` A. {ŭnollk, {ŭnlŭhss` {unlă’hss` A. ŭnut- A. ŭnultekōk A. ŭnosk
B. inoyl B. inosiskersk B. inosshack B. B. inósk’l
C. innolχ´ C. intl̃ash C. inol’tis C. inol’vekoχ C. inoskl̃χ´
D. inls D. D. D. D.
YUMAN
2b. sote (White) 10. sal 3. ainchaho (Heintzelman) 1. sal-kövatéa 6. salgolyoho
1. t’hótii 11. sal 6. salgoharaba 10. sal-guvetee 23. salẖow
10. thutii 21. sál 21. salsělawhó= “fingernail” 11. {săl-qovutéh {sal-guviteye 21. sál saleehó
11. thutiya (Gilbert) 18. säl 23. salchepa 18. säl-kuběté 7. saltilyoho (Gibbs)
18. thudí 22. sále 11. {săltiqĭ {saltida 21. sal-kŭbité 9. hisalyekělyěhó
13. mevee 1. sálle 10. saltídya 9. hisalye-kûbûtá 8. isalculyiho
4. mibiísch 23. esal 15. selchkasow 19. shál-gubdé 16. asshatlkay-show (o as in bough)
7. {meebeenya {(Mowry) {hibí (Gibbs) 24. esalch 23. sal-kootai
12. eesálche 2. shal-kóta
7. eesarlya (Mowry)
9. hivipúk 15. selchpayén 12. esalche serap 13. shal-kserap 12. eesalche calla hotche
2a. vuyeboka 7. hisála (Gibbs) 24. esalchqualy- umas 5. hisháltye- watásh 13. meshalkleho
21. sál 9. hisalkothar̃ápa 8. isalcusirape 20. ishallchevetá 7. meesarlquilyoho (Mowry)
11. (sál)hănōvă =“right hand” (Renshawe) 14. isalgh 9. hisalkothar̃- ápa I. ginyakyuqui 15. selchkawaoh
26. satl` 8. isalsicon 17. shaẖ 25. hasuth-kapatai 14. selkeshau
15. selch 17. shaẖ (ẖ=χ) 3. shawas (Peabody) 26. sakl-pĭtai 18. sělěhó
24. esalch 19. shál 4. eshaki- sharábish 19. shělahó
12. {eeseth´l, {èsee´l 2. shala 19. shál 20. shallglojó
23. esílmok 5. shalkeseráps 5. shalkeseráps shèndish 1. siluw`or
6. isálya 4. eshalish 13. shalkeserap 2. shalahuó
8. isale 20. eshallchag- hpeyén 2. shalagaite =“thumb” 25. silyawhó
14. isalgh 13. meshal 20. eshallque- sharáp 17. shaẖnepool
17. shaẖ (ẖ=χ) 16. asshatl 16. asshalscarap 10. setehóa
19. shál 25. h`asătlkwia- yěl 25. hasuthkwaiimut 11. sĭtăhwóû
20. eshall 6. hathbink 7. {meesarlqui- thahrapa (Mowry) {sequaharapa (Gibbs) 5. keshliwoχósh
5. ishalísh I. ginyak I. ginyakyuqui 3. elcawho´p (Peabody)
16. asshatl II. naganná II. ignimbal 4. eshekiohoósh
25. h`asath` III. naganná III. ignimbal 24. esalchqualyu- how
I. ginyakpak IV. naganná IV. ìñimbal I. ginyakka
II. guenebí 14. enepul II. geneka
3. {shawarra (Peabody) {arowhur
Prominent among the data set forth to establish an alleged genetic linguistic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman tongues has been the word “hand” as represented in the languages in question.
A discriminating examination, however, of the accompanying comparative schedules, comprising the words “arm, hand, finger, thumb, and fingernail,” fails to reveal any evidence that any genetic relationship exists between the languages here subjected to comparison.
It has been suggested that the relationship is established through the Yuman sal (shala, isalgh=isalχ), “hand”, etc., and the Serian name for “wing” as recorded by M. Pinart, namely, isselka; but Mr. Bartlett wrote this word iseka without the l, so this sound may or may not be genetic. But it has not been shown that isselka or iseka ever signified “hand, arm, finger, thumb, fingernail”, to a Seri, or that it is a component element in any one of these five terms in the Serian tongue; and so it is apparently futile, in the absence of historical evidence, to attempt to employ this term iseka or isselka, “wing”, as an assumed cognate of the Yuman sal, to establish linguistic relationship between the languages.
COMPARATIVE LIST OF SERIAN FINGER-NAMES
McGee Pinart Bartlett
Thumb ŭnŭltékok inol´vekoχ
Forefinger ŭnŭ´lstess inol´tis
Middle finger ŭnŭltemŭ´ka`p inol´l´emakkap
Ring finger ŭnŭlteépa inol´tip
Little finger ŭnŭlschálk inol´shak
Arm {mĭ´noŭllt {mĭnoŭlld innolχ´ i-noyl
Wrist ŭnuhpkĭht inoliavap´χ´a
Hand {ŭnollk {ŭnlŭ´hss`, ŭunlă´hss` intl̃ash i-nos-is-kersk
Fingers inol´tis {i-nos-shack {i-nos-shack-itova= “toes”
Right hand inol´l´apa
Left Hand istl̃ik
Finger nails ŭnosk` inoskl̃χ´ i-nósk´l
It would seem, that the term given by M Pinart for “fingers” is not accurate, since he has previously recorded it for “forefinger”, in which he is confirmed by Professor McGee. It seems probable that the literal signification of the term for “little finger” is “son (or offspring) of the hand.” Professor McGee writes i-sahk for “son” as said by the father, and M Pinart writes isaak for the same idea.
SERIAN
Wing(s) Feather(s) Bird
A. A. A.
B. iséka B. hrekina, = “bird feather” B. schaîk; (schek-)337
C. isselka C. inna C. shek; (shiik-)
D. D. D.
YUMAN
2. sha 4. shabílsh 2. tishá
13. eeshalk´sab̲i̲llus 5. shawílsh 17a. tăchā (San Tomas)
7. ibīlya (Gibbs) eebeelya (Mowry) 7. seebeelya (Mowry) siviya (Gibbs) 19. itisha; tyesha
9. hivílyě 6. sivílya 22. tesya
11. wă´lă 9. sivílya 21. tcĭsá
18. wálle 8. sewailye I. ic̲h̲a
23. oowaloo 17. shawalh 14. asha
4. melahótch 12. sahwith´l 15. asa
21. wĭrawídă 10. seguala 11. {issā,=“raven” {ŭsă=“eagle” (Gilbert)
24. wirrawir 19. wála 13a. shuh
17. wurawir; (whīrrawhiuh340) 23. tewalooeme 6. atsiyéra
16. erwirry 15. hewirwírr 16. erwirry7.{cheeyura {achiéra (Gibbs)
15. -awirr (hewichitt-) 24. wirrawir 9. achiyěra = “small birds”
8. eyerk 21. apa-quirrh = “tail feather” 17b. cheeyara
I. ic̲h̲quan 18. {wálle {mûséma=“quills” 20. etsiyerre
II. goumó 20. -ěěmist (etsiyerre-) 5. teseyérekopaí
26. wŭrrawŭrra 2. mata 23. kewalo
I. ic̲h̲quan 4. e-yê´rk
II. nhamba 8. noosquivira
16. sohmay sharwattěl341 10. kipay
26. limith II. kabto
13b. ahermá
16. sohquiah (i in like)
24. sepa
The comparative list of names for “wing” in the Serian and the Yuman languages exhibits no satisfactory evidence of a genetic relationship between the collated vocables; in like manner there is no phonetic accordance whatever between the terms denoting “feather” in the two groups of words. It seems evident, however, that several of the Yuman words for “wing” and “feather” are phonetically mimetic onomatopes; compare whirrawhiuh (17) from Mr Parker’s San Tomas Mission Vocabulary, which is evidently an imitative word for the sound made by the wings of a bird (for example, of the California quail) in rapid motion.
In the collated schedule of names for “bird” there is lacking any phonetic accordances indicative of linguistic relationship between the languages compared.
SERIAN
Bone Leg
A. míttag (like German “mittag”) A. attân attâqklem=“thigh”
B. hrehiták B. itahom
C. ittak C. {hitaχom=“thigh” {hippeχl=“leg”
D. D.
YUMAN
15. âk 2. uata (Loew) impadi (White)
24. ak 1. mópada
24a. ák 11. mupata (Renshawe)
25. āk 19. mpáda
26a. ak 6. methílya
I. hak 7. {methilya (Gibbs)=“thigh” {meemay meethilya (?)=“upper { leg”
23. ẖak 10. methil
27. hăk 20. emé
17. ok 23. eme
26b. n’yak 21. emmí
18. chiyä´ka
21. tciáka
4. escháques
7. n’eahsárk (Mowry) 17. mee
5. shaaks 13. memae
13. yoosak 12. meesith’l
8. inyesake 15. emílye
20. ndchashácq’ 4. emistilísh
10. tiága 3. imyliwhy
19. tiága 16. ewhitl
6. uániga 14. iuilgh
3. namsail 24. enyi-wílch
2. kuévata 18. thimuwála
7. esal-hiwa (Gibbs) 5. eskarowísh
II. acheso (Spanish?) 8. enesaquiwere
16. micashsho 9. himetca-áma=“upper legs”
11. siminoho (Gilbert)
I. ma-nyak
II. gelelepi
IV. agannapaho (cf. “foot”)
An examination of the several names for “bone” in the two groups of terms from the Seri and the Yuman tongues in the comparative list above reveals no trustworthy evidence of linguistic relationship between the two groups.
The same want of agreement between the two groups of terms purporting to denote “leg” in the Serian and the Yuman languages is manifest in the foregoing comparative list.
SERIAN
Blood Red
A. á-it A. ka-ailqt
B. âv’t B. ke-vilch
C. av̌at C. kēveχ´l
D. D. kebls
YUMAN
9. ahwátam 22. guate
16. ahwhat 9. awhát
21. awhát 16. h’what
12. awhút (Comoyei) 21. awhátěk
25. ă-whŭt 12. achawhut
26. a-whăt 25. whŭt
14. akhoat 26. whŭt
6. neghoata 14. khoat
10. tigval 6. aghóathum
23. t-quat 10. kokhoát
15. h’wat 23. oo-qual
13. ẖwat (ẖ=χ) 15. h’wát
17. ẖwat 13. ẖwat
18. hwat 17. ẖwat
19. hwát 18. chěhwáta
11. hwă´tigă 19. ahuáti
2a. hŭata 27. ěwhŭt
3. inuwhal 2a. awáti
8. nichwarte 8. awhát
7. n’yawhart (Mowry) 7. itchahhoata (Mowry)
20. niejuít (j=χ´) 20. cuicávojuít
7. yahwata (Gibbs) 7. echahuáta (Gibbs)
2b. kŭalayŭ 2b. kalyo
4. ehivetch 4. hivet
5. hiχwítsh 5. χwíttcem; gwíttem
I. huat I. mac̲h̲c̲h̲uang (=maχχuang)
IV. jueta II. mocao
II. jued IV. mokó
At first glance there seems to be some degree of relationship between the groups of terms signifying “blood” and “red” in the Serian and the Yuman tongues. But a discriminating examination of the words of the two collated lists seems to lead to the contrary conclusion.
It may be well to note that the difference between the Serian vocables denoting “blood” and those signifying “red” is that the latter have a prefixed kă- or kě- sound, in this resembling most other attributive terms in the language. This kă or kě is probably a pronominative element. The Seri forms of the name for “blood,” however, have no initial guttural prefix, and, owing to the lack of historical evidence, it is not possible to declare that the Seri word, as compared with the Yuman terms, has lost an initial guttural aspirate, which is apparently genetic in the Yuman words, as it is present in 27 of the 28 variants of the Diegueño (14) khoat and Mohave (9) ahwat cited in the list. This is emphasized by the fact that the guttural aspirate remains unchanged whether the term denotes “blood” or, metaphorically, “red”. The Yuman word apparently has no distinctively adjective or attributive form. This is evidently in direct contrast with the Seri word, in which the attributive form is initially and terminally different from the form of the word employed as the name for “blood”. These considerations strongly militate against the assumed linguistic relationship between the Serian terms denoting, concretely, “blood”, and, metaphorically, “red”, on the one hand, and the Yuman vocables of like signification on the other.
SERIAN
Yellow (brown) Green Black Blue
A. {móssolqt {komassolt (brown) kóilqlh kópolt kóilqlh
B. k´másol kovilch kopolcht válch-kopolch
C. kmassol̃χ´ kovül̃χ´; χpanams kopoχ´l (dark) kovül̃χ´
D. kmozol kobslh jikopohl (darkness) (j=χ)
YUMAN
I. simarai manac̲h̲ui ic̲h̲c̲h̲ara c̲h̲angmangc̲h̲uiai
II. yembil mosoo akal
2. kŭase ilvi nya aveshŭve
4. aques hashamelavî´k mîlk habashû´ck
5. kwíssem verrevèrs nyílk χaweshúk
6. agoathum havesug vanilgh havasug
7. {okwarthi (Mowry) {akwátha Gibbs) havasook amatk whenyaeelkh hwainyēlk havasook havasóke
8. akwahum timahóchi naailk avisuk
9. akwátha habasó hwanyilý habasó
10. agoathega nyágh ashuuga
12. aquesque atsowoo surche quimele; hawoo surche
13. quas h̲b̲soo nyil h̲b̲soo
14. akhoas kaposhu nilgh kaposhu
15. quas h’pashu qu’n’ylch h’pashu
17. quos ẖpshoo ny̲il h’pashoo
16. quass quass netl hupshu
18. akwátha haběsúwi nyä´chi; nyä haběsúwi
19. kuáthi kuáthi iniä´ havěshúvi
20. accuésque jabashúc ñiellgue m’mai; m’mai cojoshuñiá
21. aquássŭk aquás hapíli habĭshú
22. akwátha gawesúwe nyátie gavesúwe
23. koosai emelsoo nyeg emelsoo
24. ahapeshu qu’nilch ahapeshú
These comparative schedules of color-names denoting “yellow or brown”, “green”, “black, darkness”, and “blue”, collated from the Serian and the Yuman languages, exhibit no phonetic accordances which would be indicative of linguistic kinship between the two groups of languages compared.
It may be of some interest to remark here that the only dialect among the large number compared above that employs the term “sky” for blue is the M’mat (20); in this dialect m’mái signifies “sky”, while m’mái or m´mai-cojoshuñiá (literally, “sky color”) denotes “blue”.
SERIAN
White Old Young
A. kó`pol kma`kōk (man) kŭnkai´e (woman) sepía` (man)
B. kôpcht ikomákolch siip
C. kohoχp
D. {kmakoj (man) {konkabre (woman) sip; psip=“boy”
YUMAN
I. tipyc̲h̲e (tipyχ´e) oosing wanju
II. calá acusó
IV. gala {whanu=“child, young one” {wakna, misprint for wáhna (Laymon)
2. n’shava velhé (Laymon) ba (Laymon)
4. hemaál kuraácks homarsh
5. χemálye {kureáks (man) {akoís (woman) meχaís
6. nimesam kvoraaga ipa
7. {n’ymahsava (Mowry) {n’yamasába (Gibbs) {kwirirark (Mowry) {kwarraák (Gibbs) {mess-ser-haik (Mowry) {messerháik (Gibbs)
8. yimeusava quaráki issintaie=“one”
9. nyamasába {kwadaä´k (man) {kwakuyá (woman) {atatayútca=“ancestors” maháia (man)
10. nimesav patáiga heméiga
11. {pagataíya (Gilbert)= { “young man” {kamûdûmû (Gilbert)= { “young woman” {hamě´ (Gilbert)= { “young man, boy” {mŭmsĭ (Gilbert)= { “young woman, girl”
12. hamarlk
13. hmal koorchak amahai
14. nomosháb umáu itmam
15. yem’súp quirruck ikutkuspírr
16. nemschap qurruk quomiek
17. eemschap koorak quel
18. nyuměsábi {bělhéi (man) {kûmûhwĭ´dûmûr (woman)
19. niměsáva
20. jamallgue curaácca (man) iepac
21. ĭmĭcápa {pělhé (man) {pakí (woman) pahŭrmŭ´rrě hatcě´n (woman)
22. nyemesáwe
23. umesap pahtai pakookeechap
24. ném’shap querak quenacui (woman)
24a. nĭr-mishăh korák {hequál (man) {hatcĭ´n (woman)
The group of Serian names for the color “white” have no phonetic accordances with the collated Yuman terms of like meaning.
Of the compared groups of Serian and Yuman names for “old” and “young” it may be well to remark that in both some of the terms recorded mean simply “man”, “woman”, without regard to age, or “large, great man” (Seri A, B, D, and Yuman 6, 9, 10, 21, 23, 24. In number 21 paki signifies simply “woman”, regardless of age. Yuman number 8 signifies “one”, not “young”). This cursory comment shows how untrustworthy much of this material is. It is evident that there is here no proof of genetic linguistic relationship between the Seri and the Yuman languages.
SERIAN
Great, large Small Good Bad, ill
A. -gehkpa
B. kakkolch kipk’ha kîpi homîip; miph’la
C. kakkoχ´ {kip’χχa; kissilχ´ χeppe χ’omipla (kmipl̃a, “bitter”)
D. kakoj
YUMAN
I. c̲h̲ai,(=χ´ai) ac̲h̲tawan =aχá´tawan), “young” taip taipena
II. cáokoo cánil ahámi aminllí (=amiñyi)
IV. ká (Laymon) {ami {tahipo}(Laymon) {tahipe {ambiñyi {may (Laymon)
2. {vete (Laymon); { bite gatye {khane {ahónni kalyeve
4. otía n’yokek hoátk’ nyoymik
5. wetáym nokík χotk nyomík
6. vataim itáuk akhotk alaik
7. {veltakík (Mowry) {meltaim (Gibbs) {hōmmék=“tall” {anchoik {hitáuk {ahhoteka {ahōt’k {munnaik {elhōtmuk; elláik
8. h’watai echitawa epache-hoti= “good men” pipach-ilhotim= “bad men”
9. veltáia; ohumik =“tall” hitchaúwa ahót alai
10. vatega ketiga akhánega hianomaga
12. oteique onoc oque ahotekah; ahotk haloolk
13. btek qunnuk ẖanna enoimi
14. igu iltik khan ikútsikhlitch
15. aquacktàiye el mâam h’hun w’hlitch
17. quotai leepist mooẖoi oorap
16. attih el marm k’hun witlitch
18. taya; ta; hěmí kě´chi háni, hánikûm kalěpi
19. táyake; věté kitie háne χ´ělé´pě
20. bettáic n’noc ajótk l’láic
22. weté kétye hané helépe
23. etai mootit mgai hoogloi
24. ecúy halyemuck quahan qual-hitch
In the comparison of the adjectives “great, large” there is a single apparent accordance between the two groups, and that is between the Cochimi cáokoo and the several Serian terms. The Laymon form indicates that the stem is ka or cá; but an analysis of the Serian words shows that kolch, koχ´ or koj (for koχ´) is their base, the initial ka being merely a pronominative, as may be seen from an inspection of the compared lists of attributives or adjective elements in the Seri groups, including the color-names. Now, Mr Bartlett writes in the same list with cáokoo, calka, “a lake” = “water, large”, accenting the cá, “great, large”; and his “small” is cá-ñil=“great not”.
Comparing Dr Gabb’s χai, “great, large”, and ka or cá, on the one hand, with the Kiliwee kootai and kute in sal-kootai and pah-kute, “thumb” or “large finger”, and “chief” or “large, great man”, and with the Kiliwee etai, “great, large” on the other, it becomes evident that cá is a curtailed form of kootai (kute), as etai is. The cáokoo of Mr Bartlett evidently signifies something more than “large, great”; it may possibly mean “large house”—i. e., cáuaka, or “large earth, ground”—i. e., cáakug, or it may be a cognate of Gabb’s eχkaikang, “high mountain”. But nevertheless its derivation has been demonstrated so as to show that it has nothing in common with Serian terms.
There is likewise no phonetic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “small”, and this is also true of those signifying “good”, “bad”, and “ill”. These four comparative lists then show no genetic relationship.
SERIAN
Water Die, dead Wood, tree
A. ak`, hak` -amŭkŭk ahká-uhkă=“firewood”
B. ache (=aχ´`) kochhe {akáhoke=“wood” {eaomtkite
C. aχ´ (aχ´) {ikoχχe=“die” {χuaχχ´e=“dead” {akaχχ´ŭkŭă=“wood” {ehe=“a stick, palo”
D. ahj (ahχ´) ehe=“arbol”
YUMAN
I. {kaχ´- (in kac̲h̲para, “sea”) {tasi; desi= “to drink” epè {wac̲h̲e=“tree” {aput=“wood”
II. cal ybitá allegcó=“wood”
IV. kahal; kalal (?) ibi; yibi (Laymon)
1. ahá, aháa epíga
2. aha nevaye; bi=“dead” i-i=“tree, wood”
3. niluwhet; hahaw’l {ihu=“tree” {inalch=“shrub” {iya=“wood”
4. háche epúik (ipáik=“alive”) {emabatách=“tree” {eeêche=“wood”
5. χá epúïk {teísh=“tree” {iísh=“wood”
6. akha ipuik aí=“tree”
7. {ahá {ákhha (Gibbs) {hippooik=“dead” {hippóik (Gibbs) {ahah=“cottonwood” {ahee; a-í=“wood” (Gibbs)
8. ahá ichichiwoche=“tree” a-í=“wood”
9. aha hipúik ahaá=“tree”; aí=“wood”
10. aháa apíge iíe=“tree”
11. ha haigopiga (Gilbert)
12. ahá éeesh=“tree” e-ee; e-eetch=“wood”
13. ẖa (=χa) puik eekwsen; ee=“wood”
14. akha meley akhakunau; il=“wood”
15. h’ha mispà ilye; sin’yauquatài=“tree”
16. ahah mispah e-ee; e-ee=“wood”
17. ha (=χa) m’s’pa oochoẖ; ee=“wood, pine”
18. ahá, ha pih iíh
19. áha, há bihi; bi; pi ivi; i-i=“wood”
20. já (χ´a) opúic eí=“wood” and “tree”
21. ahá ipapí ii, akiŭl; iiruba=“wood”
22. aha hepi
23. aẖa (=aχa) paspi ẖaipak
24. ah’há mesapá ily=“tree”
All the Serian words denoting “water” are monosyllabic and terminate with the k-sound or aspirated guttural χ, followed by the breath instant (to which the final e of Mr Bartlett’s orthography is equivalent). On the other hand, the vocables of the Yuman group of dialects invariably end in a vowel or a double vowel, and, in 24 out of 31 given forms, they are dissyllabic, several being trisyllabic. The Laymon form of the term is evidently the least affected by use, and jointly with the words numbered 5, 6, 7 (Gibbs), 13, 14, 17, and 23, shows the genetic character of the terminal vowel in the given words. These considerations render it probable that the apparently radical resemblance of the collated words is fortuitous and not at all genetic.
In the Serian list of names for “wood” two different words are given, and a third occurs meaning “tree”, perhaps “shrub”. This third word, ehe, is very probably an exotic in the list, and is seemingly of Yuman origin, through its substitution by a Yuman-speaking interpreter for the proper Seri word. The correct term is probably contained in the other word given, ahkáuhkă, “firewood” (McGee); a-ká-hoke, “wood” (Bartlett); akaχχ´ŭkŭŭ, “wood”, Spanish “leña” (Pinart). The base of the word is evidently ahka, a-ka, or aka, signifying “wood”, while uhka, hoke, or χχ´ŭkŭě, is the attributive, meaning “dead” (compare ikoχχe, “to die”, χuaχχ´e, “dead”, kochhe, “dead”). Hence, the compound signifies “dead wood” or “dead timber”, and the correct Seri word for “wood” is very probably ahka, or aka. In giving the names of the time periods M Pinart records an expression that confirms the foregoing analysis. The word in question koneheχkŭě ishshaχ´, which signifies the month in which “se seca el pasto”—i. e., the month “the grass dries, becomes sere”. Now, the element, heχkŭě is evidently identical with χχ´ŭkŭă above, and this rendering should be “the month the grass dies”. Thus it would seem that the term ehe, not being a native Seri word, does not serve to establish relationship with the Yuman.
The compared list of the Serian and the Yuman vocables purporting to denote “die, dead”, show no tokens of relationship.
SERIAN
Sky (the heavens) Rain (cloud)
A. {a-mě´m-ma {a-měm-ma kwŭ-ĭ´k-pok {a-měm-ma kŭm-ŭn-kewt-na= “horizon” {khópka=“rain”; okáltta=“cloud” {kŭthla=“fog”
B. a-mî-me ip´kakaokuk=“heavy rain” (?)
C. amimme=“sky, heaven” {hipka=“rain, shower” {χoopka=“it is raining” {okala kχuauom=“it is cloudy”
D. ammime {ipka=“rain” {okaxla=“cloud”
YUMAN
21. akwarra bóka
8. iqui kowawakochain
2. o´kve okenedia kivo; kiva, kiwa
3. ama haishunat
24. amâi equi
13. amai k´wus
9. amáia kubaúk; kubaugě=“it is raining”
12. ammai muhheé; ikwi=“cloud”
10. amayaá kivvoga
6. amaya kovauk
1. hámasia=“heavens” ékwi mädshiga
23. emmai quicha
I. embai
15. mâi paou
16. mai (i in like) pow
17. mai qui
4. mâiche oaûk
5. maish
14. may ikvny
11. maya (Renshawe) kw´voga
20. mmái obáuc
22. meya
11. miyá (Gilbert)
7. {ummmayya {ummáia {coolowwa; hobauk (Yuma) {kobauk
18. ûmiyä´ ikwiwó=“rain”; ikwí=“clouds”
19. ěkwi=“clouds”; tíwo=“rain”; ekwariga=“the sky is cloudy”
While the seeming resemblance between the Yuman terms for “sky, heaven”, and the Serian vocables of the same meaning is more apparent than real, yet the kinship of the Seri with the Yuman group of languages has been conjectured upon data of which this merely fortuitous similarity was made a factor.
The derivation of the characteristic Yuman term amai, the variants of which constitute, with the exception of three vocables, the entire list here compared, is evidently from the stem of the Mohave amail, “above, on top”, amaile, “higher”, the Yavapai miävi, “up”, and also the Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), amiki, “over”. In the number-names, such as those for “eleven” and “twelve”, this vocable becomes maik and maga in Maricopa, in Bartlett’s Coco-Maricopa, and in Cochimi, and maike in Hummockhave, amike in Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), umaiga and umai in M’mat, amaik in Mohave (Gibbs), mae in Kutchan, amaik in Kutchan (Englehardt), emmia in Santa Catalina; in all the number-names in which these variants occur they have a single meaning, namely, “above, over, on top, added to, plus”. Thus it is evident that the Yuman variants of amai, “sky, the heavens”, are cognate with the auxiliaries or flexions of number-names cited above. Hence, originally the Yuman concept of the “sky” was “the place above, the higher place, or the place on top”.
The derivation of the Seri vocable amime or aměmma, “sky, the heavens”, while bearing only a fortuitous resemblance to the Yuman terms noted above, is not traceable from the meager material at present accessible. Strictly speaking, the extent of the phonetic similarity between the Yuman and the Seri vocable is the possession of an m-sound in the first syllable, which is evidently the dominant one in the Yuman terms. On the other hand, the Serian vocable has two syllables dominated by the m-sound, and the foregoing explanation of the derivation of the Yuman vocable, if correct, as it seems to be, does not supply any means for explaining this duality of syllables dominated by an m-sound in the Serian term. For unlike the Yuman dialects of the present the Seri tongue does not duplicate the stem of a word or any part thereof for any purpose whatsoever (though in the past the Seri may or may not have had the duplicative process, for a language can not only do what it is accustomed to do, but may at all times acquire new habits). So it would seem that without historical evidence to support it this comparison is invalid as an indication of linguistic kinship between the vocables compared, and its evidence regarding the conjectured relationship of the two groups of languages is negative.
SERIAN
Sun Moon Fire Earth
A. sěáhk esschahk a`má`kă ŭmmt; e`k=“dust”
B. schra isah amakinoch am’t
C. shaa ishshaχ´ amak {ashamt=“clay, adobe” {hamt=“the earth”
D. rahj; tahj amak ampte
YUMAN
I. epan̲g̲ konga maahra ēmat
II. ybo kaglimbák usi akug
III. ibo
IV. ibo; ibunga (Laymon) gamma; ganehmajen usi amet; ammet
1. inyáa häláa oóo
2. nyá h´lá; hallá (White) hoo; weya (White) mata
3. inugh hailiyugh eya; ahi muat
4. enn´yache halyáche n´yakiém máche
5. nyas χilás; χalásh ahaus mát
6. anyá halyá aáua amata
7. {unya {u̲nyá (Gibbs) {huala {hálla (Gibbs) {ahowwa {aáuwa (Gibbs) {amata {am-má-ta (Gibbs)
8. anya halya chiwaswe á-i
9. anyá hálya aáuwa amat; tciáma
10. inyaá halá a tuga mat
11. nya (Gilbert) hla (Gilbert) otoga (Gilbert)
12. m’yatche huth’lya; hullyar aáwo ōmut amáth (Bennett)
13. ẖuya; hnya? ẖalla ow a-má-ta
14. inyá khilshiá áua mat
15. n’ya hulchyá aáou mut
16. enyah hutl’yah quu mut
17. nya h’kla matuanap mot
18. nyä halá oóh mat; amát; máte
19. nyávi; nyá ’láwe; ’lá óo amat; mata
20. nyá jellá aáu h’mát
21. n’ya hŭllá âá; itshi= “coals” mät
22. enya halá ohó
23. eñai ẖala aau omot
24. enn’yachipáp helchhyá aáou umát
The comparative schedules of the Serian names for “sun” and “moon” exhibit no phonetic evidence of genetic relationship with the collated lists of Yuman vocables of like import.
Between the Serian names for “fire” and the Yuman terms of like import there is no phonetic accordance indicative of glottologic kinship.
It has been supposed, and not without a measure of possibility, that a radical relationship exists between the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “earth”. The supposition rests on the approximate phonetic accordance of two consonants occurring in these terms, quite regardless of the vowel sounds that render them intelligible. The four Seri authorities are in close accord in not hearing and recording a vowel sound between the m and the following t. This final t is apparently explosive, indicated by Mr Bartlett with a prefixed apostrophe and by Sr Tenochio with an e, whose final position would make it faint. The initial h of the record of M Pinart is very probably due to the Yuman-speaking interpreter. Now, in the 26 forms of the Yuman word here collated the vowel intervening between the m and t of the Yuman vocable is strong and characteristic, and in 11 instances it is accented. While the Seri forms are monosyllables, 17 of the 28 Yuman examples are dissyllabic and 3 are trisyllables. The Cocopa muat indicates the persistency of the medial vowel. These differences, admittedly but poorly indicated by the faulty alphabets employed by the several word collectors, are important and significant; were the several terms here compared faithfully recorded as spoken, by means of a discriminative phonetic alphabet, it seems probable that these literal accordances, in view of the marked differences noted above, would disappear. So in the absence of historical evidence of the genetic relationship of the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “earth”, it seems best to regard this literal accordance as fortuitous rather than real or genetic.
SERIAN
Dog Coyote Wolf
A.
B. achks hashokévlch.=“red hasho”
C. aχ´sh vootth χ´ekkos
D. boot
PIMAN
Dog Coyote Wolf
a. cox (Pima, White) serr
b. yocsi (Nevome) vana suhi
c. koks (Pima) pan
d. kocks (Opata) guo
YUMAN
I. ethatta etadwachetibawaha (etadwachetibawaha)
II. masa
1. uhát kathâ´t
2. tsata kethuda mbá
3. cowwaick
4. hatch hatakúltis
5. χát χatelwís; χatelwísh χattekúltis
6. akhatchora kuksara
7. {hotchóuk hooktharu {hatchóka (Gibbs) hūkthara (Gibbs)
8. hachochoke hookhare
9. hattcâka (pl. hattcâktca) hukçára
10. akhat gesat
11. hot; aha (Renshawe) kthat; cathă´t (Renshawe)
12. hoowée
13. aẖatchookachook aẖateleeway
14. khat
15. h’hút hutch’kôlk
16. hotchukchuk hutchpah
17. aẖot aẖotoopai
18. kuthá’rt kuthá’rt hána
19. katháta nimmîta (nimiwi)
20. jatsocsóc jatelué
21. a`hat; ahŭt
22. kehér
23. itat milti latkil
24. h’hut huwi. (Kutchan, Bartlett) h’takulch
The comparative list of names for “dog” shows that the Seri term was very probably adopted from the Piman group of tongues, and there is therefore no apparent relation between the Serian and the Yuman terms.
The Serian name for “coyote” shows no kinship with the Yuman names for this animal.
The Serian names for “wolf”, χ´ekkos and hasho-kévlch (=“red hasho”), show no apparent linguistic relationship to the Yuman names for this animal. It is possible that the Serian terms have some affinity to the Piman terms for “dog” and “wolf”.
Notwithstanding the unqualified conclusion of Herr J. C. E. Buschmann as to the separateness of the Waïcuri (Guaicuri), the late Dr Daniel G. Brinton, in positive terms, though from adverse evidence deduced from precarious data, included this and the Seri tongue in the Yuman stock of languages. Speaking of a comparative list of words specially selected from the Cochimi, Waïcuri, Seri, and Yuma, he says: “The above vocabularies illustrate the extension of the Yuman stock to the southward. The Cochimi and Waïcuri are remote dialects, but of positive affinities.”342 Yet of seven terms selected by him from the Waïcuri to prove these “positive affinities” not one has any phonetic accordance with the term with which it is compared. This, it would seem, should have sufficed to eliminate the Waīcuri from the Yuman stock. Pending further research, this language should stand independently.
Of the conjectured glottologic kinship of the Seri to the Yuman stock Dr Brinton says:343 “The relationship of the dialect to the Yuman stock is evident.” Yet out of twenty-one terms which he chose to exhibit the grounds of his faith only six (those for “tongue”, “eye”, “head”, “water”, “man”, and “teeth”) show any definite phonetic resemblance. This number, however, can certainly be reduced by careful scrutiny. Thus, he cites the Laymon and Cochimi tamá as a cognate of the Seri eketam. The Laymon and Cochimi term, it must be remembered, does not occur in this form in a single other tongue admittedly Yuman. Now, before this vague resemblance can establish relationship it must first be shown that the terms compared have a common linguistic tradition and that a form of tamá is or has been an element common to the other dialects of the Yuman group. But an analysis of the Cochimi term shows no trustworthy ground for considering these terms related. So this certainly reduces the number of conjectured accordances to five.
Comparison is made by Dr Brinton between the Serian ata´st (îtast, hitast), “tooth” and “teeth” (collectively), and the vocable ehdoh (Lieutenant Bergland’s), “tooth”, variants of which are common to only three of the twenty-odd Yuman dialects. He made this comparison evidently under the impression that the first part of the Seri term ata´st (itast, hitast) signifies “tooth”. But such is not the fact. The first part of this Seri vocable signifies “mouth” (as may be seen in the discussion of the comparative list of names for “tooth”) and the latter part “stone”. The term îtast, “tooth”, is, therefore, literally “stone of the mouth”. This is certainly not the signification of the Yuman terms, and so the comparison is invalid, and the number of apparent accordances is reduced to four. By some oversight it seems Dr Brinton omitted from this comparison the Cochimi hastaá, “tooth”; but this collocation has been made by others. Now, this term hastaá belongs exclusively to the Cochimi dialect, and before becoming a means of comparison would have to be shown to be a vocable common to the body of Yuman terms having a common linguistic tradition, which has not been done. Moreover, the phonetic obstacles barring a way to a fruitful comparison of this term with the Serian are quite insuperable—the assumed loss of the first half of the Seri term, the acquirement by the Cochimi of the initial h sound and of the final accented syllables -aá, or the converse process. This, it seems safe to say, renders this comparison likewise invalid.
The Seri term intlash, “hand”, has certainly no phonetic accordance with the peculiar Yuman israhl, which is from the Yuma or Kutchan record of Lieutenant Eric Bergland, nor, indeed, has it any accordance with any other Yuman term for hand. The presence of the r sound in it supplies the peculiar feature of the term; but it may be used only to lengthen the following vowel (though this is only an assumption). This form is peculiar because there is none like it in about thirty Yuma vocabularies, representing about twenty dialects, in the archives of the Bureau of American Ethnology. A careful inspection of the comparative list of the Seri and the Yuman names for “arm”, “hand”, “finger”, “thumb”, and “fingernail” will demonstrate the utter futility of the comparison under consideration, for there is no accordance between the Seri and the Yuman terms.
Elsewhere herein, in discussing the terms for “head” and “hair”, “eye”, “tongue”, and “water”, it is shown that there is no apparent linguistic relationship between the Serian terms on the one hand and the Yuman on the other, and those explanations dissipate entirely the suspected accordances of Dr Brinton.