It seems clear, furthermore, that iltá (14) is merely a curtailed example of khaltá (14), for it is clear that this iltá is a cognate with the h`lta (27), the initial h`-sound of which, Mr Henshaw says, represents a rough guttural utterance (represented herein by the character χ). In (27) of the comparative list h`lta, expresses both “head” and “hair”, thus completing the circuit and making iltá cognate with khaltá, since it is plain that h`alta (χalta) of 24a, hlta of 26, and h`l-ta of 27, the initial sound in each being, as shown above, a rough guttural are related to khaltá. The term hu-ch’lmo (24) is a compound of hu-, “head”, and -ch’lmo, an evident cognate with the element -gŭlma or -kělěme ( =kělěmĭs) noticed above, denoting “hair”; hence, the combination signifies “hair of the head”. In like manner the H`taäm or San Tomaseño form (17) ẖ’lemo may be explained. In this dialect ẖo (=χo) signifies “head”, and an original ẖolemo (=χo-lěmĭs), signifying “hair of the head”, became contracted to the form in question, namely, ẖ’lemo. In the Santa Isabella record of Mr Henshaw hŭsta signifies “hair”, but hŭsta-kwarŭr is given for “head”, while ŭs-tŭk-ŭm-ō is translated “skull”; the last expression should have been written (h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō. Under the caption “robe of rabbit skins”, h`kwĭr is found, but under “skin” in “Parts of the Body” of his schedule, `nyakwăt (26) and n’kwěr (25) are found, both meaning “my skin”; Corbusier’s Mohave record has himát-makwil rendered “skin of man”, but meaning “skin of the body”, himát signifying “body”, and makwil, “skin”. The Mesa Grande term for skin is given as lĭmĭs, a vocable which has already been discussed. So it must be that the foregoing hŭsta-kwarŭr signifies “skin of the hair” or “skin of the head”, if hŭsta is also a synonym for “head”. The final -ŭr in the compound in question is due to the misapprehension of the rolled or trilled r-sound with which the term for skin terminates. The element -kŭmō of the vocable (h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō, rendered “skull”, is also a factor in the Diegueño terms for “head” in numbers (15) and (16) of the comparative list; so that it is highly probable that these terms signify “skull” rather than “head”. And, lastly, it is equally probable that the expression (18) kumpaiya kûwâwâ signifies “hair of the whole head (skull)” rather than “head” only; for the initial kum- is presumptively the cognate of the forms -cumōh and -kŭmō, denoting in the compounds already noted “skull”, while -paiya signifies “all”, and kûwâwâ “hair”. There appears to be a relationship between the terms for “head” and “hair” in (12b) oomwhelthe, “head”, (3) amawhach and mowh´l, “hair”, and (26) mă-whl, “head”. The explanation of the term hu-lchsta, (15), denoting “hair”, is probably to be found in its resolution into hu (χu), “head”, and lchsta for a form of hŭsta, “hair”, discussed above; the term signifies, therefore, “hair of the head”. In like manner huch´lta (24), rendered “head” there, seems rather to mean “hair of the head”, by its reduction to hu, “head”, and ch´lta, for a form of khalta (= χalta), “hair”.
The Serian variants of the term denoting “head”, are respectively (A) ahleht. (B) ih´lit, and (C) ill´it. These forms certainly have no kinship with the Yuman terms discussed above; they have a totally alien aspect. The Serian terms for “hair” are respectively (A) ahleht, (B) ina (“feather” rather than “hair”), (C) ill´it kopt´no, and (D) obeke, and while the last has an aspect foreign to the other terms classed as Serian, none of the vocables appear to offer ground upon which to predicate relationship between the Yuman and the Serian. For a further explanation of obeke turn to the discussion of “tooth”.
The comparative list of Serian and Yuman names for the “nose” reveals no evidence of linguistic relationship between the two groups; but an inspection of the Yuman lists for “head”, “hair”, and “nose”, exhibits a close connection between a number of the names for “head”, “nose”, and “beak, bill”.
| SERIAN | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Eye | Face | To see | |
| A. | mĭtto | aiyen | |
| B. | íto | îyén | ikehom |
| C. | hittovχs (pl. ?) | hien (in hienkipkue)= “cheeks” | okta; χ´ookta |
| D. | iktoj (for iktoχ´)(pl. ?) | llen | |
| YUMAN | |||
| 4. | edóche (pl.) | edóche | eyûuk |
| 7. | {hidho {meet´dho=“thy eye” | {hidho {meethoownya=“they face” | {hissâmk (far), héyūk (near) {ekwuo |
| 6. | ído | hisamk, i-údo[336] | |
| 8. | idosaca | ilo | halquack |
| 9. | hiço, hiçotca (pl.) | hiço | samk=“I see it” isampotc=“I do not see” |
| 12a. | edotche-ée (pl.) | odótche, eeyu | o-ook |
| 13. | medok=“thy eye” | meya | eyu |
| 20. | edhó | edo-cuámcoba | iyúc |
| 21. | yú | yú | |
| 2. | yû | ho (and “head”) | ó-o |
| 22. | yu | yu | |
| 19. | uú | ||
| 11. | yu, úh (Gilbert) | ethool, tialbûgû | |
| 18. | yuh | yu | ahámi |
| 11. | yuh` (Renshawe) | ethoól | |
| 1. | yú-u | páya | |
| 10. | yu-u | yuu | akhámuk |
| I. | yupicha (pl.?) | yupi | gir |
| 11. | ye-baká | yabi | amigi |
| 3. | agu, ihu | iuabó | ouwerk |
| 23. | ayu | neẖuẖa | sau |
| 14. | hiyéu, i-ído | iyib | |
| 17. | yeoo | yeoo | oom |
| 15. | yiou | alt´hwá | ewiouch |
| 16. | eeyou | eeoh | ohum |
| 12b. | eeyu-suneyao | ||
| 24. | yeou | kewú | |
| III. | gadey | ||
| 5. | woyoès | idosh, yaχelemísh | ashäämk |
| 25. | hiiyu | hiiyu | |
| 26. | iyiu | iyiu | |
| 27. | iyiu | iyiu | |
Eight of the terms for “eye” in the yuman word lists are ído, hidho, or their variants, in five Yuman dialects, Maricopa, Mohave, Hummockhave, Kutchan, and M´mat (virtually in but three, for Hummockhave is but a subdialect of Mohave, and M´mat of Kutchan), and the remaining twenty-one examples are from an entirely different stem or base which is apparently connected with a verb “to see,” one of the forms of which is eyûuk (4), héyuk (7), and iyó-ok (6); the form ído and its several variants is seemingly connected with iúdo (6), “let us see”, apparently an imperative form, in a manner similar to the connection between yú (2), “eye”, and its variants, and the verb form eyûuk just cited.
It will be seen from the table that okta and χ´ookta (or χ´ukta) are the Serian forms of the verb “to see”. The form iktoj or iktoχ´, “eyes”, recorded by Sr Tenochio, is the nominal form of that verb, the final j or χ´ being, as it would appear, the plural ending. The -vχs final of M Pinart’s record as distinguished from Professor McGee’s mĭtto and Mr Bartlett’s íto and approximated in Sr Tenochio’s iktoχ´, is evidently plural in function. While the Serian material bearing on this question is, indeed, very meager, it nevertheless seems proper to regard the apparent accordance between the Serian term for “eye (eyes)” and the Yuman vocable, ído and its variants, of limited prevalency, signifying “eye,” as fortuitous rather than genetic.
The comparative list of the Serian and the Yuman names for the “face” shows no relationship between the two groups of languages.
| SERIAN | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tongue | Tooth, teeth | Foot | |||
| A. | âps´s | A. | atá`st | A. | tâhŏtkl |
| B. | íp´l | B. | itast | B. | itóva |
| C. | hipχl | C. | hitast | C. | ittovaχ |
| D. | D. | D. | itoba | ||
| YUMAN | |||||
| II. | abilg | 4. | edoóche | 3. | amea (Peabody) |
| 12. | {epulch {epailche | 12. | aredóche | 13. | mee |
| 4. | epalch | 6. | idó | 17. | mee |
| 10. | ipal | 8. | ido | 11. | mi (Gilbert) |
| 11. | ipā´l (Gilbert) | 5. | hidoö´s | 19. | mi |
| 21. | ipä´l | 9. | hidhó (hi¢ó) | 21. | mĭ´ |
| 20. | ipáll | 7. | meet’dho | 10. | mie |
| 8. | ipala | 13. | medok | 18. | mĭh |
| 2. | pala | 20. | edháw | 11. | mĭnh (Renshawe) |
| 6. | ipaylya | 11. | yâ (Gilbert) | 1. | míi |
| I. | hapara | 19. | yâ | 24. | emil |
| 18. | hipä´l | 21. | yâ´ | 15. | emil-yepiyen |
| 5. | hipálsh | 11. | yō (Renshawe) | 4. | emésh |
| 9. | hipälý | 2. | yo | 8. | eme-culepe |
| 13. | mepal | 18. | yoh | 23. | emepah |
| 7. | {meepahlya, hípala | 1. | yóo | 12. | emetch-slip aslap-yah |
| IV. | mabela | 10. | yoo | 20. | eme-guzlapa-zl´áp |
| 15. | anapalch | 17. | yeow | 16. | emmee |
| 24. | anapalch | 16. | eow (ow long) | 6. | ime |
| 14. | anepáilkh | 23. | eau | 3. | imi-coushu |
| 16. | anpatl | 14. | iyao | 14. | i-mil |
| 17. | ẖenapail | 3. | iyahui | 9. | himé |
| 23. | neẖapal | 15. | iyáou | 5. | himís |
| 3. | inyapatch | 24. | iyaou | 7. | meemee |
| 1. | yupáu | 11. | foea | 2. | {nanyo {nanû (White) |
| 11. | yupäl (Renshawe) | I. | hastaá | I. | ma-nyakkoyan (cf. ma-nyak, “leg”) |
| IV. | agannapa (cf. “leg”, “hand”) | ||||
After a careful examination of the collated lists of names purporting to signify “tongue” in the Serian and Yuman languages it will be seen that the relationship conjectured to exist between the two groups is fortuitous or coincidental rather than real. The guttural rough breathing χ preceding the l sound in M Pinart’s record, and indicated by an apostrophe in Mr Bartlett’s spelling and by an s in Professor McGee’s orthography, is clearly wanting in all the Yuman terms cited. Were there linguistic relationship between the two groups of terms here compared it would seem that this sound should find a place in one or another of the long list of Yuman terms, notably divergent among themselves. It is possible, if not probable, that the final l, la, or ra of the Yuman terms is not a part of the stem; but this would not affect the want of accordance noted above.
An analytic investigation of the comparative list of vocables purporting to signify “tooth” in the Serian and the Yuman languages discloses no evidence of genetic relationship between them. Those who classify the Serian speech as a dialect of the Yuman cite the Yuman ido, hidhó (the eh-doh of Lieutenant Bergland), signifying “tooth”, as one of the vocables indicating a genetic relationship between the two groups of languages. The comparison is made between the ido, hidhó, and eh-doh cited above and the close variants of the Serian ata`st. An inspection of the comparative list of names for “tooth” shows that this particular Yuman form is confined to the Mohave, Maricopa, and Kutchan dialects (for the M’mat, which also employs this term, is nearly identical with the Kutchan), and that the remainder of the Yuman list of dialects has, with a single exception, an entirely different word; this exception being the Cochimi, which independently has another. The Yuman group, then, has three radically different words purporting to signify “tooth”.