= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in
family sense).
= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast
of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of
Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in
Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham
in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities).
Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848.
(after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).
= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three
principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or
Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat;
quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.
= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs. of
A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of
tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa,
Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475,
1878 (includes Palaiks).
< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of
present family).
Derivation: From the Klamath word _p’laikni_, signifying “mountaineers”
or “uplanders” (Gatschet).
In two places[73] Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks
interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of
linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this
is given preference over the shorter form of the name.
[Footnote 73: U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.]
Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River
dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of
the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,”
* * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simple languages of the Sacramento.”
He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian
tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to
believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related
to the Sastean languages.