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. | ahleht | (ahleht) | 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 |