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.