| SERIAN | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dog | Coyote | Wolf | |
| A. | |||
| B. | achks | hashokévlch.=“red hasho” | |
| C. | aχ´sh | vootth | χ´ekkos |
| D. | boot | ||
| PIMAN | |||
| Dog | Coyote | Wolf | |
| a. | cox (Pima, White) | serr | |
| b. | yocsi (Nevome) | vana | suhi |
| c. | koks (Pima) | pan | |
| d. | kocks (Opata) | guo | |
| YUMAN | |||
| I. | ethatta | etadwachetibawaha | (etadwachetibawaha) |
| II. | masa | ||
| 1. | uhát | kathâ´t | |
| 2. | tsata | kethuda | mbá |
| 3. | cowwaick | ||
| 4. | hatch | hatakúltis | |
| 5. | χát | χatelwís; χatelwísh | χattekúltis |
| 6. | akhatchora | kuksara | |
| 7. | {hotchóuk | hooktharu {hatchóka (Gibbs) | hūkthara (Gibbs) |
| 8. | hachochoke | hookhare | |
| 9. | hattcâka (pl. hattcâktca) | hukçára | |
| 10. | akhat | gesat | |
| 11. | hot; aha (Renshawe) | kthat; cathă´t (Renshawe) | |
| 12. | hoowée | ||
| 13. | aẖatchookachook | aẖateleeway | |
| 14. | khat | ||
| 15. | h’hút | hutch’kôlk | |
| 16. | hotchukchuk | hutchpah | |
| 17. | aẖot | aẖotoopai | |
| 18. | kuthá’rt | kuthá’rt hána | |
| 19. | katháta | nimmîta (nimiwi) | |
| 20. | jatsocsóc | jatelué | |
| 21. | a`hat; ahŭt | ||
| 22. | kehér | ||
| 23. | itat | milti | latkil |
| 24. | h’hut huwi. (Kutchan, Bartlett) | h’takulch | |
The comparative list of names for “dog” shows that the Seri term was very probably adopted from the Piman group of tongues, and there is therefore no apparent relation between the Serian and the Yuman terms.
The Serian name for “coyote” shows no kinship with the Yuman names for this animal.
The Serian names for “wolf”, χ´ekkos and hasho-kévlch (=“red hasho”), show no apparent linguistic relationship to the Yuman names for this animal. It is possible that the Serian terms have some affinity to the Piman terms for “dog” and “wolf”.
Notwithstanding the unqualified conclusion of Herr J. C. E. Buschmann as to the separateness of the Waïcuri (Guaicuri), the late Dr Daniel G. Brinton, in positive terms, though from adverse evidence deduced from precarious data, included this and the Seri tongue in the Yuman stock of languages. Speaking of a comparative list of words specially selected from the Cochimi, Waïcuri, Seri, and Yuma, he says: “The above vocabularies illustrate the extension of the Yuman stock to the southward. The Cochimi and Waïcuri are remote dialects, but of positive affinities.”[342] Yet of seven terms selected by him from the Waïcuri to prove these “positive affinities” not one has any phonetic accordance with the term with which it is compared. This, it would seem, should have sufficed to eliminate the Waīcuri from the Yuman stock. Pending further research, this language should stand independently.
Of the conjectured glottologic kinship of the Seri to the Yuman stock Dr Brinton says:[343] “The relationship of the dialect to the Yuman stock is evident.” Yet out of twenty-one terms which he chose to exhibit the grounds of his faith only six (those for “tongue”, “eye”, “head”, “water”, “man”, and “teeth”) show any definite phonetic resemblance. This number, however, can certainly be reduced by careful scrutiny. Thus, he cites the Laymon and Cochimi tamá as a cognate of the Seri eketam. The Laymon and Cochimi term, it must be remembered, does not occur in this form in a single other tongue admittedly Yuman. Now, before this vague resemblance can establish relationship it must first be shown that the terms compared have a common linguistic tradition and that a form of tamá is or has been an element common to the other dialects of the Yuman group. But an analysis of the Cochimi term shows no trustworthy ground for considering these terms related. So this certainly reduces the number of conjectured accordances to five.
Comparison is made by Dr Brinton between the Serian ata´st (îtast, hitast), “tooth” and “teeth” (collectively), and the vocable ehdoh (Lieutenant Bergland’s), “tooth”, variants of which are common to only three of the twenty-odd Yuman dialects. He made this comparison evidently under the impression that the first part of the Seri term ata´st (itast, hitast) signifies “tooth”. But such is not the fact. The first part of this Seri vocable signifies “mouth” (as may be seen in the discussion of the comparative list of names for “tooth”) and the latter part “stone”. The term îtast, “tooth”, is, therefore, literally “stone of the mouth”. This is certainly not the signification of the Yuman terms, and so the comparison is invalid, and the number of apparent accordances is reduced to four. By some oversight it seems Dr Brinton omitted from this comparison the Cochimi hastaá, “tooth”; but this collocation has been made by others. Now, this term hastaá belongs exclusively to the Cochimi dialect, and before becoming a means of comparison would have to be shown to be a vocable common to the body of Yuman terms having a common linguistic tradition, which has not been done. Moreover, the phonetic obstacles barring a way to a fruitful comparison of this term with the Serian are quite insuperable—the assumed loss of the first half of the Seri term, the acquirement by the Cochimi of the initial h sound and of the final accented syllables -aá, or the converse process. This, it seems safe to say, renders this comparison likewise invalid.
The Seri term intlash, “hand”, has certainly no phonetic accordance with the peculiar Yuman israhl, which is from the Yuma or Kutchan record of Lieutenant Eric Bergland, nor, indeed, has it any accordance with any other Yuman term for hand. The presence of the r sound in it supplies the peculiar feature of the term; but it may be used only to lengthen the following vowel (though this is only an assumption). This form is peculiar because there is none like it in about thirty Yuma vocabularies, representing about twenty dialects, in the archives of the Bureau of American Ethnology. A careful inspection of the comparative list of the Seri and the Yuman names for “arm”, “hand”, “finger”, “thumb”, and “fingernail” will demonstrate the utter futility of the comparison under consideration, for there is no accordance between the Seri and the Yuman terms.
Elsewhere herein, in discussing the terms for “head” and “hair”, “eye”, “tongue”, and “water”, it is shown that there is no apparent linguistic relationship between the Serian terms on the one hand and the Yuman on the other, and those explanations dissipate entirely the suspected accordances of Dr Brinton.