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.