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 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.

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.	a^hleht	(a^hleht)		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) a^hleht. (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) a^hleht, (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-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
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.	tâhŏt^kl
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`noŭl^lt`	A.	{ŭnol^lk, {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´noŭl^lt {mĭnoŭl^ld	innolχ´	i-noyl
Wrist	ŭnuhpkĭht	inoliavap´χ´a
Hand	{ŭnol^lk {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
20.	-millajo, (etsiyerre-)[338]	13.	sab̲il; (sawillch[339])	18.	isá=“eagle”
21.	wĭrawídă	10.	seguala	11.	{issā,=“raven” {ŭsă=“eagle” (Gilbert)
24.	wirrawir	19.	wála	13a.	shuh
17.	wurawir; (whīrrawhiuh[340])	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 sharwattěl[341]	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.	{móssol^qt {komassolt (brown)	kóil^qlh	kópolt	kóil^qlh
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`po^l	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”; oká^ltta=“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.	sěáh^k	esschah^k	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.