Serian
A.ŭntç-kōpka
B.eans’l-kapka
C.
D.
Yuman
6.arabavik-takavuts-hamók
9.arhap-havik-takadútca hamok
23.chepam ẖoomiak
18.hěmukě buwáwi
1.humuku huwava
11.hwáwa hamōk
8.sahoke-hamuck
13.sauhook-ahoomook
20.shahahjóc ahah jamúc (j=χ)
4.shahóque ahamóck
5.shahúha χamúk
14.selgh-hamuk
19.muku-ávi
2.moke-uave
10.vava-hamok
21.womás hamŭ´k

FORTY

Serian
A.ŭntç-ksō´k
B.eans’l-scoch
C.
D.
Yuman
9.arhap-havik takadútca tcimpap
23.chepam misnok
2.hoba-uave.
18.hopachě buwáwi
19.hopadsh-uávi
1.hopätia wáva
11.hwáwa hoopá
13.sauhook wauchoopap gishbab
20.shahahjóc ahah tseumpáp
5.shaχúka sumpáp
10.vava-hōpa
21.womas ahopá

FIFTY

Serian
A.ŭntç-kóitum
B.eansl-kovat´hom
C.
D.
Yuman
9.arhap-havik takadútca çarhabk
14.aselghakai
18.hěräpě buwáwi
11.hwáwa ftápa (Gilbert)
23.mesig quinquedit sol-chepam
13.sauhook wa sarap
19.sěráp uávi
20.shahahjóc ahah saaráp
1.thěrapa wuwáva
10.vava hatábuk
21.womas aseräpa
2.satabe-uave.

Comparative Lists of Serian and Yuman Conceptual Terms

SERIAN
ManWomanPeople, Indians
A.kŭ´tŭmmA.kmámmA.kun-kák
B.éketamB.ékemamB.komkak
C.ktamC.kmamC.komkak
D.{tam (ktam)
{tamuk; ktamuk (pl.)		D.{kmam, kamujik
{kamykij (pl.)		D.
YUMAN
III.tama19.ěpá věχíII.demansú=“Indian”
IV.{tamá, tämmá, tammá”
{=“homo”
{uami=“man, male” 		3.nisúke24.epái
II.delmá16.nechuck26.ipai=“Indian”
I.wanyu-ami=“young man”17.gechak15.ipaye
3.apah5.{senyeák
{senyeáks		11.upáh, ûp-ă´
19a.ěpá12.seenyackI.{maha=“people”
{mahati=“Indian”
4.epá-che (pl.)8.siniake23.meẖale
13.epa20.siñaacca17.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.epa24.sinquahín9.pipate (pl. of man)
8.ipa24a.ěssin20.piipatse-pallenám
2.{ipa
{ipa gŭli=“Indian”		15.sîin. syn16.tepitetchetleowah
5.{ipás (s doubtful)
{ipátsh (pl.)		27.sin5.{matsh-tshámak
{matsh-tshámk
19b.pá, pá´h26.siñ24a.ipai=“Indian”
10 pa14.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.ecotche2.make, ouidima=“Indian woman”
14.igutch21.měbĭsí
24a.ikute23.kokoa
26.ikuĭtch ikwitsI.wanki
27.ikwĭtcIV.wakoe (Laymon) wuctu, wuetu (Laymon) huägin=“mulier”
20.curaccaII.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.