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.

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”.

The Serian vocable for “tooth” is a compound term, being composed of elements denoting “mouth” and “stone”. In the Seri word-collection of Professor McGee attě´nn signifies “mouth”; atta-moχ, “lower lip”, possibly “down about the mouth”; attahk, “saliva” (“water of the mouth”); attahkt, “the chin”; takōps, “upper lip”; attěms, “beard”; ata`st, “tooth”; and a`st, “rock, stone”. Mr Bartlett, in his vocabulary, recorded îten, “mouth”; ita-mocken, “beard”; and hast, “stone”. M Pinart, in his Seri word list, wrote hiten, “mouth”; hita-mokken, “beard”; and hast, “stone”. Lastly, Sr Tenochio wrote iten, “mouth”, and ahste, “stone”, in ahsteka “large, high stone, rock”. Sr Tenochio also recorded obeke, “hair, down (pelo)”. One of the peculiarities of the sounds represented by the letters m and b is that in many instances they grade one into the other. There is here, seemingly, a case in point. The moχ of Professor McGee, the mocken of Mr Bartlett, the mokken of M. Pinart, and the obeke of Sr Tenochio appear to be cognates. Substituting m for the b in obeke, omeke results, which is approximately the moχ, mocken, mokken cited above. Hence, hita-mokken and its congeners, it seems, signify “down of the mouth”. In attahk, “saliva”, the element combining with attě (for it is plain that the final -n is dropped in compounding) is `ahk or `akh, “water”, so that this compound signifies, literally, “water of the mouth”. These analyses show that attě´nn, iten, and hiten, dropping the final n-sound, unite with other elements in the form attě, ite, and hite, respectively. Now, these, in combination with a`st or ast, “stone”, become, respectively, atta`st, itast, and hitast, the forms of the word for “tooth” recorded by Professor McGee, Mr Bartlett, and M Pinart, in the order given. The Seri name for “tooth” signifies, then, literally “stone of the mouth” or “stones of the mouth”. This analysis demonstrates the lack of relationship between the Serian and Yuman names for tooth.

The comparative schedules of names for “foot” in the Serian and the Yuman languages show no accordances of a phonetic character tending to show any genetic relationship between the two groups compared.

Prominent among the data set forth to establish an alleged genetic linguistic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman tongues has been the word “hand” as represented in the languages in question.

A discriminating examination, however, of the accompanying comparative schedules, comprising the words “arm, hand, finger, thumb, and fingernail,” fails to reveal any evidence that any genetic relationship exists between the languages here subjected to comparison.

It has been suggested that the relationship is established through the Yuman sal (shala, isalgh=isalχ), “hand”, etc., and the Serian name for “wing” as recorded by M. Pinart, namely, isselka; but Mr. Bartlett wrote this word iseka without the l, so this sound may or may not be genetic. But it has not been shown that isselka or iseka ever signified “hand, arm, finger, thumb, fingernail”, to a Seri, or that it is a component element in any one of these five terms in the Serian tongue; and so it is apparently futile, in the absence of historical evidence, to attempt to employ this term iseka or isselka, “wing”, as an assumed cognate of the Yuman sal, to establish linguistic relationship between the languages.

COMPARATIVE LIST OF SERIAN FINGER-NAMES

It would seem, that the term given by M Pinart for “fingers” is not accurate, since he has previously recorded it for “forefinger”, in which he is confirmed by Professor McGee. It seems probable that the literal signification of the term for “little finger” is “son (or offspring) of the hand.” Professor McGee writes i-sahk for “son” as said by the father, and M Pinart writes isaak for the same idea.

The comparative list of names for “wing” in the Serian and the Yuman languages exhibits no satisfactory evidence of a genetic relationship between the collated vocables; in like manner there is no phonetic accordance whatever between the terms denoting “feather” in the two groups of words. It seems evident, however, that several of the Yuman words for “wing” and “feather” are phonetically mimetic onomatopes; compare whirrawhiuh (17) from Mr Parker’s San Tomas Mission Vocabulary, which is evidently an imitative word for the sound made by the wings of a bird (for example, of the California quail) in rapid motion.

In the collated schedule of names for “bird” there is lacking any phonetic accordances indicative of linguistic relationship between the languages compared.

An examination of the several names for “bone” in the two groups of terms from the Seri and the Yuman tongues in the comparative list above reveals no trustworthy evidence of linguistic relationship between the two groups.

The same want of agreement between the two groups of terms purporting to denote “leg” in the Serian and the Yuman languages is manifest in the foregoing comparative list.

At first glance there seems to be some degree of relationship between the groups of terms signifying “blood” and “red” in the Serian and the Yuman tongues. But a discriminating examination of the words of the two collated lists seems to lead to the contrary conclusion.

It may be well to note that the difference between the Serian vocables denoting “blood” and those signifying “red” is that the latter have a prefixed kă- or kě- sound, in this resembling most other attributive terms in the language. This kă or kě is probably a pronominative element. The Seri forms of the name for “blood,” however, have no initial guttural prefix, and, owing to the lack of historical evidence, it is not possible to declare that the Seri word, as compared with the Yuman terms, has lost an initial guttural aspirate, which is apparently genetic in the Yuman words, as it is present in 27 of the 28 variants of the Diegueño (14) khoat and Mohave (9) ahwat cited in the list. This is emphasized by the fact that the guttural aspirate remains unchanged whether the term denotes “blood” or, metaphorically, “red”. The Yuman word apparently has no distinctively adjective or attributive form. This is evidently in direct contrast with the Seri word, in which the attributive form is initially and terminally different from the form of the word employed as the name for “blood”. These considerations strongly militate against the assumed linguistic relationship between the Serian terms denoting, concretely, “blood”, and, metaphorically, “red”, on the one hand, and the Yuman vocables of like signification on the other.

These comparative schedules of color-names denoting “yellow or brown”, “green”, “black, darkness”, and “blue”, collated from the Serian and the Yuman languages, exhibit no phonetic accordances which would be indicative of linguistic kinship between the two groups of languages compared.

It may be of some interest to remark here that the only dialect among the large number compared above that employs the term “sky” for blue is the M’mat (20); in this dialect m’mái signifies “sky”, while m’mái or m´mai-cojoshuñiá (literally, “sky color”) denotes “blue”.

The group of Serian names for the color “white” have no phonetic accordances with the collated Yuman terms of like meaning.

Of the compared groups of Serian and Yuman names for “old” and “young” it may be well to remark that in both some of the terms recorded mean simply “man”, “woman”, without regard to age, or “large, great man” (Seri A, B, D, and Yuman 6, 9, 10, 21, 23, 24. In number 21 paki signifies simply “woman”, regardless of age. Yuman number 8 signifies “one”, not “young”). This cursory comment shows how untrustworthy much of this material is. It is evident that there is here no proof of genetic linguistic relationship between the Seri and the Yuman languages.

In the comparison of the adjectives “great, large” there is a single apparent accordance between the two groups, and that is between the Cochimi cáokoo and the several Serian terms. The Laymon form indicates that the stem is ka or cá; but an analysis of the Serian words shows that kolch, koχ´ or koj (for koχ´) is their base, the initial ka being merely a pronominative, as may be seen from an inspection of the compared lists of attributives or adjective elements in the Seri groups, including the color-names. Now, Mr Bartlett writes in the same list with cáokoo, calka, “a lake” = “water, large”, accenting the cá, “great, large”; and his “small” is cá-ñil=“great not”.

Comparing Dr Gabb’s χai, “great, large”, and ka or cá, on the one hand, with the Kiliwee kootai and kute in sal-kootai and pah-kute, “thumb” or “large finger”, and “chief” or “large, great man”, and with the Kiliwee etai, “great, large” on the other, it becomes evident that cá is a curtailed form of kootai (kute), as etai is. The cáokoo of Mr Bartlett evidently signifies something more than “large, great”; it may possibly mean “large house”—i. e., cáuaka, or “large earth, ground”—i. e., cáakug, or it may be a cognate of Gabb’s eχkaikang, “high mountain”. But nevertheless its derivation has been demonstrated so as to show that it has nothing in common with Serian terms.

There is likewise no phonetic relationship between the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “small”, and this is also true of those signifying “good”, “bad”, and “ill”. These four comparative lists then show no genetic relationship.

All the Serian words denoting “water” are monosyllabic and terminate with the k-sound or aspirated guttural χ, followed by the breath instant (to which the final e of Mr Bartlett’s orthography is equivalent). On the other hand, the vocables of the Yuman group of dialects invariably end in a vowel or a double vowel, and, in 24 out of 31 given forms, they are dissyllabic, several being trisyllabic. The Laymon form of the term is evidently the least affected by use, and jointly with the words numbered 5, 6, 7 (Gibbs), 13, 14, 17, and 23, shows the genetic character of the terminal vowel in the given words. These considerations render it probable that the apparently radical resemblance of the collated words is fortuitous and not at all genetic.

In the Serian list of names for “wood” two different words are given, and a third occurs meaning “tree”, perhaps “shrub”. This third word, ehe, is very probably an exotic in the list, and is seemingly of Yuman origin, through its substitution by a Yuman-speaking interpreter for the proper Seri word. The correct term is probably contained in the other word given, ahkáuhkă, “firewood” (McGee); a-ká-hoke, “wood” (Bartlett); akaχχ´ŭkŭŭ, “wood”, Spanish “leña” (Pinart). The base of the word is evidently ahka, a-ka, or aka, signifying “wood”, while uhka, hoke, or χχ´ŭkŭě, is the attributive, meaning “dead” (compare ikoχχe, “to die”, χuaχχ´e, “dead”, kochhe, “dead”). Hence, the compound signifies “dead wood” or “dead timber”, and the correct Seri word for “wood” is very probably ahka, or aka. In giving the names of the time periods M Pinart records an expression that confirms the foregoing analysis. The word in question koneheχkŭě ishshaχ´, which signifies the month in which “se seca el pasto”—i. e., the month “the grass dries, becomes sere”. Now, the element, heχkŭě is evidently identical with χχ´ŭkŭă above, and this rendering should be “the month the grass dies”. Thus it would seem that the term ehe, not being a native Seri word, does not serve to establish relationship with the Yuman.

The compared list of the Serian and the Yuman vocables purporting to denote “die, dead”, show no tokens of relationship.

While the seeming resemblance between the Yuman terms for “sky, heaven”, and the Serian vocables of the same meaning is more apparent than real, yet the kinship of the Seri with the Yuman group of languages has been conjectured upon data of which this merely fortuitous similarity was made a factor.

The derivation of the characteristic Yuman term amai, the variants of which constitute, with the exception of three vocables, the entire list here compared, is evidently from the stem of the Mohave amail, “above, on top”, amaile, “higher”, the Yavapai miävi, “up”, and also the Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), amiki, “over”. In the number-names, such as those for “eleven” and “twelve”, this vocable becomes maik and maga in Maricopa, in Bartlett’s Coco-Maricopa, and in Cochimi, and maike in Hummockhave, amike in Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), umaiga and umai in M’mat, amaik in Mohave (Gibbs), mae in Kutchan, amaik in Kutchan (Englehardt), emmia in Santa Catalina; in all the number-names in which these variants occur they have a single meaning, namely, “above, over, on top, added to, plus”. Thus it is evident that the Yuman variants of amai, “sky, the heavens”, are cognate with the auxiliaries or flexions of number-names cited above. Hence, originally the Yuman concept of the “sky” was “the place above, the higher place, or the place on top”.

The derivation of the Seri vocable amime or aměmma, “sky, the heavens”, while bearing only a fortuitous resemblance to the Yuman terms noted above, is not traceable from the meager material at present accessible. Strictly speaking, the extent of the phonetic similarity between the Yuman and the Seri vocable is the possession of an m-sound in the first syllable, which is evidently the dominant one in the Yuman terms. On the other hand, the Serian vocable has two syllables dominated by the m-sound, and the foregoing explanation of the derivation of the Yuman vocable, if correct, as it seems to be, does not supply any means for explaining this duality of syllables dominated by an m-sound in the Serian term. For unlike the Yuman dialects of the present the Seri tongue does not duplicate the stem of a word or any part thereof for any purpose whatsoever (though in the past the Seri may or may not have had the duplicative process, for a language can not only do what it is accustomed to do, but may at all times acquire new habits). So it would seem that without historical evidence to support it this comparison is invalid as an indication of linguistic kinship between the vocables compared, and its evidence regarding the conjectured relationship of the two groups of languages is negative.

The comparative schedules of the Serian names for “sun” and “moon” exhibit no phonetic evidence of genetic relationship with the collated lists of Yuman vocables of like import.

Between the Serian names for “fire” and the Yuman terms of like import there is no phonetic accordance indicative of glottologic kinship.

It has been supposed, and not without a measure of possibility, that a radical relationship exists between the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “earth”. The supposition rests on the approximate phonetic accordance of two consonants occurring in these terms, quite regardless of the vowel sounds that render them intelligible. The four Seri authorities are in close accord in not hearing and recording a vowel sound between the m and the following t. This final t is apparently explosive, indicated by Mr Bartlett with a prefixed apostrophe and by Sr Tenochio with an e, whose final position would make it faint. The initial h of the record of M Pinart is very probably due to the Yuman-speaking interpreter. Now, in the 26 forms of the Yuman word here collated the vowel intervening between the m and t of the Yuman vocable is strong and characteristic, and in 11 instances it is accented. While the Seri forms are monosyllables, 17 of the 28 Yuman examples are dissyllabic and 3 are trisyllables. The Cocopa muat indicates the persistency of the medial vowel. These differences, admittedly but poorly indicated by the faulty alphabets employed by the several word collectors, are important and significant; were the several terms here compared faithfully recorded as spoken, by means of a discriminative phonetic alphabet, it seems probable that these literal accordances, in view of the marked differences noted above, would disappear. So in the absence of historical evidence of the genetic relationship of the Serian and the Yuman words denoting “earth”, it seems best to regard this literal accordance as fortuitous rather than real or genetic.

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.