Vocabulary Lists of Yuman Numerals

Kiliwee (23)Cochimi (I)Cochimi (III)Cochimi (IVa)Laymon (IVb)
1.mesig1.chaqui1.tepeeg1.tejueg (in 5 tejuep) dujvenidi, dujuenidi1.tejoe
2.ẖooak2.kooak2.goguó2.goguò2.gowac, kawam, kamoe=”the other”
3.ẖamiak3.kabiak3.combió3.kombio, kambiec, combiec, cambiec3.kamioec
4.mnok = “(fingers) down”4.ic̲h̲kyum- kooak4.magacubuguá4.magacubuguà4.nauwi
5.sol chepam5.nyaki-vampai5.naganná tejueg ignimel= “una mano entera”[334]5.naganna- tejuep=“one hand”5.hwipey
6.m’sig-eleepai 6.ic̲h̲kyum-kabiak6.kamioec kawam= “two three”
7.ẖooak-eleepai7.chaquera-vampai
8.ẖamiak-eleepai8.nyaki-vam-ivapai
9.m’sigk-tkmat9.quac̲h̲era-vampai
10.chepam-mesig10.nyavani-chaqui; no contamos mas adelante.”10.naganna-iñimbal-demuejeg=all the fingers”
11.mesigk-malha.
12.ẖooak-malha
15.naganna-iñimbal-demuejeg agannapa=“all fingers, foot”
20.chepamẖooak20.naganna-agannapa-inimbal-demuejeg= “fingers, toes, all”
30.chepamẖoomiak
40.chepam-misnok
50.mesig quinquedit-sol-chepam
60.chepamme-sig quinqueditme-sigelepaip
70.chepam mesig quinqueditẖooak-elepaip, etc.
Mohave (6)Hualapai (10)Tonto or Gohun (2)Diegueño (14)
1.aséentiksitiksisi, shitikhink
2.havikhovakuakeóak
3.hamokhamokmoke hamok
4.tchungbabkhobáhôbatchibabk
5.harabkhatábuksatabéselkhakai
6.siyintatasbekgeshbéniugushbai
7.viigahoágeshbekhoageshbeniokhoak
8.muugáhamúgeshbekmogeshbeniokhamuk
9.paayahalathúighalseyenitchibab
10.aráabávuárukuaveselghiamát
11.aséentik nitauksitigiálagauave-shiti niekhin
12.havik nitaukhovaktiálikuave-uakeniekhvabgushbaib
20.ará-bavik-takavuts-havík vavahovakuake-uaveselghhoák
30.arábavik-takavuts-hamókvavahamokmoke-uave
40.hōba-uave
50.satabe-uave

Comparative Lists of Serian and Yuman Numerals

ONE

Serian
A.tó`χun, stem to`χ-
B.tohom, stem toh-, or toχ-
C.tokχom, stem tokχ-, tashsho, stem tash-
D.taso, stem tas-, tujon, stem tuχ-, “first”
Yuman
I. chaqui, chaχ´-, or χaχ´-
II. dopí
24. h’in
25.h`in, ě`hĭnk`
14.khink
23. mesig, -sig (?)
7. sayto
9. seto
12. aiséntic, sin
27. sin
6. aséentik
15. shen
5. shendíb
20. shéntic
4. ashentik
17. shin
16. asshin, shin
3. shitti
13. sin
26. ěssin
8. issintaich
2. sisi
19. sísi
1. sita
22. sité
18. síti
10. sitik
21. ĕsítika
11. sitta
III. tejueg, tepeeg
IV. tejoe, tejueg, tejuep, dujuenidi, dujvenidi

In examining the Serian column, it is apparent that the several forms for the numeral “one” are homogeneous, their varying outlines being due to the language of the collector, and especially to the alphabet employed by him. An apparently aberrant form is the tashsho (C) and taso for tashsho (D). The stem of the digit is presumptively to`χ- or tokχ-; and tash- is related to tokχ- in the same manner as duchess is to duke in the English tongue.

The Yuman column is more extensive than the Serian, representing as it does several well-marked dialects. It will be seen that the Diegueño terms for the digit “one” collected by Mr Bartlett (15) and Lieutenant Mowry (16) are evidently from a common stem, while that recorded by Dr Loew (14) is as clearly from a different one. But the Diegueño term (24) obtained by Bartlett near Los Angeles is apparently a modified form of the one obtained by Dr Loew. The two forms (25) obtained by Mr Henshaw at Mesa Grande confirm this view. While these forms apparently differ wholly from the remainder of the Yuman list, yet it seems safe to connect them with the Cochimi digit (I) collected by Dr Gabb. On the other hand, the Cochimi of Bartlett (II) introduces another term which appears to be kin to the Laymon (III, IV). The remainder of this list presents modified forms of a single vocable, which appears to have been a demonstrative. Compare these with Mohave asě´ntěnte, “an other”, and sěnta, “the other one”; also with the Yavapai sĭ´temi, “an other”, and with děspě-bĭka, “other, the other one”.

TWO

Serian
A.ghá`kum, gha`k-
B.kahom, kah- or kaχ-
C.kaχ´kum, kaχk., kookχ´, kookχ´
D.kokjl, kokχ-, kujom, kuχ-
Yuman
II.goguo
III.goguó
IV.gowac (Laymon); kawam; kamoe,=“the other”
22.guwáke
7.habeeka
4.habíck
15.habíck
20.jubíc (j as in Spanish)
6.havik
12a.havick
9.havíka
21.hawáka
12b.hawick
13.hawik
18.hěwáki
5.χawík
23.ẖooak
10.hovak
3.howōck
17.howok
16.ẖowuk
8.howwaich
19.huáka
1.huwaka
24.h’wach
11a.hwaga
25.kawŭ´k
26.kawŭ´k
14.óak
2.uake
11b.wága
I.kooak

The Serian examples of the digit “two” are of such phonetic character as to warrant the inference that they are derivatives from a single phrasm of demonstrative origin, the differences in their orthography being due chiefly to the language and training of the collectors and to the difference in the alphabets employed. There is evidently phonetic and sematic relationship between the stem of this digit and the -kak in such demonstrative elements as ish-kak, “here (where I am), now, then”; ikχ´-kaka, “near”; imk-ahaka for imk-kaka, “there where he, she, is, they are”; akki-kak, “whither? to-where? whence?“; toχ´-kaka, “far, distant, far off”; and also with iki in akki-iki, “where?”. In these examples the affix akki- has an interrogative force. The meaning of -kak is that of contiguity or proximity to the Here, the Self.

Now, the fuller Yuman list presents several forms seemingly closely accordant, phonetically at least, with the Serian terms, but these being merely divergent representatives of the distinctively Yuman term which does not accord with the Serian form, are of no avail to prove relationship. The available material pertaining to this group supplies but scant data for ascertaining the derivation of the Yuman digit. But, in addition to the connection of the Laymon gowac, with kawam, “the other”, it may be that it is permissible to compare here owá (2), “that” in Tonto, the Mohave huvá-nya (6), “he, that”, the Hummockhave howa-nméeme (8), “he”, and howai (8), “that”, the Mohave huva-tce (9), “he”, the Kutchan habu-itzk (12), “he”, the Kiliwi hapa (23), “he”, and other terms, which suggest its origin. From the foregoing explanations, there appears to be no lexic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman digits denoting “two”.

THREE

Serian
A.pháum, phá-
B.phraom, phra- or phχa-
C.p´χ´ao, p´χa-, kapχ´a, kapχ-
D.kupjtku, kupχ-
Yuman
IV.cambiec, combiec
II.combió
III.combió
I.kabiak
IV.{kambiec, kamioec, kombiec} (Laymon)
23.ẖamiak
4.hamóck
24.hamock
15.hamôk
6.hamok
25.hamō´k
26.hamō´k
10.hamok
7.hamoka
9.hamóka
3.hamoke
12.hamóok
21.hamúka
22.hamúke
18.hěmúki
14.hamok
17.ẖomook
8.homuck
16.hummoke
1.humuga
20.jamóc (j as in Spanish)
5.χamú´k
11.(ha)moga
2.moke
19.móki
13.mook

The Serian forms of the name for the digit “three” are evidently derivatives from a single term. This vocable appears to be emahk, “one-half” (McGee), found also in the name for the middle finger as given by both Professor McGee and M Pinart, the former writing ŭnulte-mŭ´ka`p, and the latter inol´l´emakkap, “middle finger”. In the Iroquoian languages also, “three” is etymologically “the middle one”, i. e., the middle finger, a signification arising from the primitive method of using the fingers as counters in numeration. The middle finger is the third one counting from either side of the hand. The form kapχ´a (C) of M Pinart apparently retains almost unchanged its primitive phonetic outline.

The Yuman list of the dialectic forms of the digit “three” is full and is evidently composed of derivatives from a single source. This parent stem seems to be the attributive hami, “tall, long”, of the Mohave vocabulary. The form hamiak signifies “it is long, tall”, and is an appropriate name for the middle finger of the hand. The Kiliwee ẖamiak, “three”, still preserves unchanged the phonetic integrity of its component elements. These etymologies fail to develop any lexic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman terms.

FOUR

Serian
A.sâ´hkŭm, sâ´hk-
B.scochhom, scochh-
C.shoχ´kum, shoχ´-, ksuχ´kŭă, ksuχk-
D.kosojkl, kosoχk-, kosojhl, kosoχh-
Yuman
8.chaimpap´k
12.chapóp
24.chepap
7.choompapa
13.ch´pap
17.ch´pop
4.chumpáp
15.chumpáp
16.chupop
20.chuumpáp
3.s´pap
5.styumpáp
26.tcăpáp
14.tchibabk
6.tchungbabk
9.tcimpápa
2.hôba
10.hobá
11.hoopbá
1.hópa
18.hopá
19.hópa
21.hopá
22.hupá
I.ic̲h̲kyum-kooak, (= iχ´kium-kuak)
II.maga-cubuguá
III.maga-cubuguá
23.mnox (?), “(fingers) closed, lying together”
IV.nauwi (Laymon)

The Serian examples of the digit “four” are evidently mere variants of a common original, the derivation and signification of which the meager linguistic material at hand seems not to supply. In no manner do these forms accord with those of the Yuman list below, thus barring any inference of relationship.

The Yuman list presents apparently only three different terms for the digit “four”. Without the means of obtaining even a partially accurate view of the historical development of such a form as the Mohave chaimpap´k (8), it is nevertheless instructive to compare it with the Cochimi ic̲h̲kyum-kooak (I), the literal meaning of which is “two repeated”. This apparently gives a clew to both the derivation and signification of the Mohave term. The initial chiam- is seemingly a modified form of the prefix ic̲h̲kyum-, signifying “repeated, again, iterated”. If this identification be correct, as it certainly seems to be, then the final -pap´k is the duplicated form of the numeral “two”, the variants of the stem of which are as follows: hub-, hob-, hav-, and hab-. This chaim- changes to cha-, che-, choom-, chu-, chuum-, styum-, tcim-, tchi-, ch’-, s’-, and tchung-, while pap’k appears as pop, pap, and papa. The next stem is that of the Tonto hôba (2), which is apparently cognate with the verb hobam, “to set, lie down”, like the sun and moon, referring to the fact that when the fingers are “all lying down” the count is “four”. The following six terms are apparently cognate with this Tonto form. The Cochimi (I) has already been mentioned. Its final kooak is the numeral “two”, and the prefix, as explained above, signifies “repeated, again, iterated”. The next two forms (II) and (III) are apparently composed of the iterative, or rather additive, prefix maga-, “added, over”, and a form of the Cochimi numeral “two”, goguò. The Kiliwi mnok signifies “lying together, closed”, as the fingers, thus approximating in sense the Tonto hôba, above.

FIVE

Serian
A.kwáetūm, kwáe-tūm
B.huavat’hom, kova-t`hom
C.kuaotom, kuao-tom, kooχtom, kooχ-tom
D.kouton, kou-ton
Yuman
8.hairrap’k
6.harabk
22.herápe
18.hěrä´pi
10.hatábuk
11.hûtápa
2.satabé
IV.hwipey (Laymon)
II.muguacogüi
III.naganná tejueg ignimel=“one whole hand”
IV.naganna tejuep=“one hand”
I.nyakivampai
9.çarhápa
7.tharrapa
4.saráp
5.saráp
13.sarap
15.saráp
17.sarap
24.sarap
20.saaráp
16.sarrap
14.selkhakai
12.seráp
21.seräpa
19.sarápi
23.sol-chepam
3.s’rap

The several forms of the Serian numeral “five” appear to be derivatives from a common original. There seems to be no doubt that it is a compound expression, meaning “one full, complete (hand)”. The final -tūm, -t’hom, -tom, and -ton are evidently forms of tó`χun, tohom, tokχom, meaning “one”, while the initial kwáe-, huava-, (kova- in “fifty”), kooχ-, and kou- are apparently derived from the term kov’, occurring in ishshaχ´ kov’, “full, complete moon”.

In the Yuman list, however, there are several different stems employed to designate the digit “five”. The forms sarap, seráp, harabk, and hairrap’k are clearly variants of a single original. Its literal signification, however, is not so evident, but from the data at hand the inference is warranted that it signifies “entire, whole, complete”. In the Mohave of Dr Corbusier hi-sal koçar̃ápa signifies “the whole hand”, and “fingers”, koçar̃ápa being also written kothar̃ápa. Now, hi-sal means “his hand”, and koçar̃ápa or kothar̃ápa would soon lose its initial ko-, from the wear to which it is subjected. In hatábuk, hûtápa, and satabé a new stem is to be recognized; it signifies “to grasp”, or rather “grasps”, and is found in aauwa sataba, “fire-tongs”, in which, aauwa means “fire” and sataba “to hold, take hold”. The reference here is to the clasped hand as signifying the digit “five”, because in counting the fingers are bent down upon the palm of the hand, the result being a closed or clasped hand. Now, in selkh-akai and sol-chepam, a form of the usual säl, “hand”, occurs, and -akai and -chepam have presumptively a signification semantically equivalent to koçar̃apa and sataba in the preceding Yuman examples, but the meagerness of the material at hand prevents the setting forth of the data necessary to prove this conjecture; yet it may be stated that if the term “hand” is a constituent element of the name for the digit “five”, it is because of the fact that the fingers and the thumb thereof are in number “five”, so that “the entire hand, the whole hand, the complete hand”, may become the name for the digit “five”. Hence, when the word hand is an element of the name thereof, as it is in the present instance, it is presumptively certain that some word like “entire, complete, whole, clasped, bent down”, must form the other element of the compound. The Cochimi (II) muguacogüi is seemingly a combination of mugua for the cognate humuga, “three”, and cogüi for goguó, “two”. And the Cochimi (I) nyakivampai is a compound of gi-nyak, “hand” [mi-nyak, foot], and some element denoting the completion of the count of the digits of one hand, -i-vampai or vampai. The Cochimi (III) and (IV) are self-explanatory, naganna, signifying “hand”, while Laymon (IV) is not explainable from the accessible data. These analyses fail to show genetic relationship between the two lists, in so far as the digit “five” is concerned.

SIX

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

The given forms of the Serian digit “six” are evidently mere variants of a common original, which seems quite naturally to have been composed of the stem -apka of the numeral “three”, and of both a prefix and a suffix. The prefixes, for there are two, are, to judge from the one in imapkasho, demonstrative in character. It may be compared with im- in imk´, “he”; imke, “that”; imkove, “they”; imki, “that”, in which it appears to be a directive prefix. And the initial n- and sn- may be cognate in origin. But the final -sūk, -’schoch, -shoχ´, -sho, and -shroj, according to the audition or otosis of the collector, must mean “repeated, doubled, again”, etc., or an equivalent. Hence, the Seri number “six” would be literally “three repeated”.

In the Yuman column at least eight different elements are involved in the formation of the digit “six” in the several dialects of the group. The digits “two” and “three” compose the larger portion of the forms, resulting in such outlines as hamhoke, hoomahook, humhoke, humhóque, χemχúk, kumhok. Hamok (10), “three”, is a characteristic form of this digit, and ẖooak (23), habick (4), and kuáka (19), óak (14), uake (2), are characteristic outlines of the digit “two”. Compare these two lists. The final -k; of the numeral “three” is elided in composition, as it is merely a predicative element, as has been indicated in discussing the Yuman digit “three”; hence, ham- or hum-, symbolizing “three”, with the suffixion of such forms as ẖooak, huáka, or uake, “two”, readily becomes humnhoke or hamhoke, literally “two threes”. In such forms as geshbe (2), despé (18), and niugushbai (14) there occurs a common element -shbe, -spé, or -shbai, which evidently signifies “added, over, plus”, just as -eleepai does in m´sig-eleepai (23), “six”, literally “one added, one more than”. The ge- or -g- in (2) is evidently the final g of the Kiliwi form of the numeral one, mesig, m´sig, which may have at one time been the digit “one” in the Tonto (2); so that geshbe or g-eshbe stands for an earlier měsig-eshbe, “six”, literally “one added (to five)”. The term de-spé is evidently a contracted form of siínta-spe, “one added”, as the other similar forms show. Compare ta-sbe-k (10) and siínta, (9) and siyinta (6), in the last two of which the suffix is wanting or at least overlooked by the collector. In ic̲h̲kyum-kabiak (I) the digit kabiak, “three”, occurs, so that ic̲h̲kyum, must mean “repeated, again, iterated”, just as it was shown in the remarks on the digit four. Now, the form maike-sin-kenaich is, perhaps, an ordinal and not a cardinal. The initial maike- signifies “more, over, added, plus”, the final -kenaich is the doubtful part, and the middle portion -sin- is a contracted form of sinta, siínta, “one”, as may be seen in the list of the Yuman forms of the digit “one”. One other form remains to be considered. The Diegueño (14) of Dr Loew has niu-gu-shbai (the syllabication is the writer’s, showing the elements of the combination). An examination of the digits “seven”, “eight”, and “nine” reveals the fact that the initial niu- has the value of “added, over, plus, in addition to”, five. But it has been seen that the ending -shbaí has a like signification. The only reasonable explanation of this anomaly is that like the Tonto (2) g-eshbe, it owes its origin to the term represented by the Kiliwi měsig; and, moreover, it seems to be a dialectic loan-word. If the term geshbe (2) was adopted as meaning six, supplanting, it may be, an earlier form like hamhoke, the force of analogy, to assimilate this to the other forms, namely, of “seven”, “eight”, and “nine”, would affix the regular dialectic prefix niu- (or nio-). These explanations and analyses of the diverse forms of the numeral “six” reveal no relationship between the Serian and the Yuman groups.

SEVEN

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

It is evident that the forms of the Serian digit “seven” are variants from a common source, and it is equally apparent that the numeral “two” is the basis for the term. The several examples of this numeral are ghá`kum, kahom, kaχ´kum, kookχ´, in which the final -um, or -om appears to be a suffix; in the term for “twenty” Professor MeGee writes ŭntçkō´k; in which the final kō´k is the term denoting “two”, and in which the final -um or -om is wanting, which probably indicates that it is a flexion. Now, it is seen that this numeral “seven” terminates in the syllable -wūū, -ue, and -ui, in direct contrast with, the termination of the digit “two”. The material at hand is too limited to determine whether this final syllable should be -wūū, -ue, -ui, or -kwūū, -kue, -kui. It apparently signifies “added, over, plus”, or some equivalent term. To attain economy of utterance the term denoting “five” was omitted from the original statement, “two added to five”, as the expression of the number seven, and so “two added” became the name of the number “seven”. An initial tom, tum, tŭn, or diŭn occurs in the names for 7, 17, 70, and 700. An evident derivative from the name for “hand”, it denotes “five”. It is a cognate of ŭnt in ksókhŭnt “nine”, literally “four-five”, and also with tanchl in Mr Bartlett’s numbers 12-19; the correct form for “seven”, it would seem, should have been tan`l kaχkue, etc., “five-two-added-on”; its initial t is identical with thet in t-aul (t-anl?), “ten”. The difference in the endings of this prefix—the difference between an m and an n—may easily be explained. In the several vocabularies it is seen that one collector fancied he heard an m sound, while another, equally careful, heard an n sound. The fact appears to be that it is an obscure nasal sound, which may readily be taken either for an m sound or an n sound by the heteroglot. In Bartlett’s list of numerals tan-tasó-que signifies “eleven”, wherein tasó- is the numeral “one”, as given by both M Pinart and Sr Tenochio, tan- the prefix under discussion, and -que the suffix mentioned above, which was regarded as signifying “added, more, plus”.

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

EIGHT

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

The Serian numeral “eight” is expressed by two different terms. The first is based on the numeral three, and the second on the digit four. The former is the remaining factor of an original expression which signified by uttered elements “three added to five (=the full hand)”, but the need for economy of expression led to the suppression of the uttered element denoting “five”, as soon as the shorter “three added” acquired the usual signification of “eight”. The basis of the digit is kō´pka or kapχ´a, “three”, with the suffix -kwūū (-kχue, -que), presumably denoting “added, plus”. This represents the usual method of forming this digit. The second term, kshoχolka, is that which is presumably based on the numeral “four”. This is the form given by M Pinart. But Sr Pimentel, citing Sr Tenochio, writes this osrojoskum, which at first sight appears to be quite different from the other; yet the r of the latter evidently stands for a modified χ and the j for a χ, and making these substitutions the term becomes osχ´oχoskum, which is approximately the form in which Professor McGee and Mr Bartlett wrote this digit in the numeral “eighty”. Now, it is self-evident that if the element “four” constitute a factor in the combination denoting “eight”, it must be added to itself by addition or multiplication, and the result will be the same in either event. The final -olka appears also as -otkŭm, -olchkom, and -oskum, in these Serian vocabularies, either in the numeral “four” or its multiples. The origin and signification of this ending are not clear; but taking into consideration the great variations in the spelling of its recorded forms, especially in so far as the consonant sound preceding the k-sound is concerned, it may not be presumptive to adopt the s-sound (though sχ´ may be more correct) as that which represents approximately at least the true sound, for it varies from l, t, lch, to s. And it has been seen that the final -um is a flexion denotive of serial or consecutive counting and so not a part of the stem. Then it is seen that -s-k- (the last two hyphens representing uncertain vowels) is the termination requiring explanation. Now, it is probable that this termination is identical in meaning and origin with the -sūk, -shoχ, -sho, -schoch, and -shroj (= -shχ´oχ) terminating the forms of the digit “six”. If this identification be correct (and there is no present reason to doubt it), it signifies “repeated, again, duplicated”, as was suspected and stated in the discussion of the forms of the numeral “six”. So granting this derivation to be correct, kshoχolka, then, signifies “four repeated”, which of course denotes “eight”.

In the Yuman list, the first eleven forms are evidently composed of the numeral “three” and a suffix signifying “added, plus, more than”, but the last three of the group want this suffix, a fact due perhaps to the fault of the collector rather than to linguistic development. The terminations -eleepai and -shbe-k and its variants have already been explained when treating of the numeral “seven”. And the twelve forms beginning with chip-hoke (16) are variants from a common original composed of the numerals “two” and “four”. It will be readily seen that chip- in such a form as chip-hoke is a contraction of a form such as tchibabk (14), “four”, chepap (24), “four”, as may be seen in the Yuman list of terms for the digit “four”. Now, the next portion of the term is -hoke, which is but a slightly disguised numeral “two”, as may be seen by reference to the schedules of the numeral “two”. Compare ẖooak (23), huáka (19), uake (2), and hěwáki (18), all signifying “two”. Now, the next term, maike-homok-enaich (8), is a combination of maike, “above, over, more than”, homok, “three”, and the ending -enaich (or -kenaich), which may be either an ordinal or a distributive flexion. The form nio-khamuk (14) is a combination of the prefix nio-, signifying “added, above, or more than”, and the conceptual term khamuk, “three”, the expression signifying “three over, or added to”. The next two examples are evidently irregular, if not spurious. The form pakaikhin-awach is composed of pakai, “seven”, khin-, “one”, and the suffix -awach, “added to”. Now, the last, the Cochimi nyaki-vamivapai, appears to be erroneous. It contains the term nyaki for ginyaki, “hand”, but the remainder of the expression is composed of elements that are not comparable to anything in the meager material at present accessible. The Serian and the Yuman terms herein show no relationship.

NINE

Serian
A.ksókhŭnt, ksókh-ŭnt
B.sohántl, soh-ántl
C.soχanthe, soχ-anthe, ksovikanlχ´
D.ksobbejoaul (j=χ)
Yuman
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.