_Serian_
A. kahkwūū
B. kachqhue
C. kaχkχue, tomkaχkue
D. tomkujkeui
_Yuman_
22. hawake-zpé
18. hěwakě-spé
10. hoáge-shbe-k
2. hoage-shbe
19. huáké-shpë
11. hwag-spě, hwagû-spě
1. waka-spe
23. ẖooak-eleepai
8. maik-kewikenaich
14. nio-khoak
20. paajkék
13. pahkae
17. pahkai
5. paχkyèk
21. pakai
24. pakai
3. pakha
16. parkai
4. patchkieque
12. pathcayé
I. chaquera-vampai
7. bee-eeka
9. víka
6. viiga
It is evident that the forms of the Serian digit “seven” are variants
from a common source, and it is equally apparent that the numeral
“two” is the basis for the term. The several examples of this numeral
are _ghá`kum_, _kahom_, _kaχ´kum_, _kookχ´_, in which the final
_-um_, or _-om_ appears to be a suffix; in the term for “twenty”
Professor MeGee writes _ŭntçkō´k_; in which the final _kō´k_ is the
term denoting “two”, and in which the final _-um_ or _-om_ is wanting,
which probably indicates that it is a flexion. Now, it is seen that
this numeral “seven” terminates in the syllable _-wūū_, _-ue_, and
_-ui_, in direct contrast with, the termination of the digit “two”.
The material at hand is too limited to determine whether this final
syllable should be _-wūū_, _-ue_, _-ui_, or _-kwūū_, _-kue_, _-kui_.
It apparently signifies “added, over, plus”, or some equivalent term.
To attain economy of utterance the term denoting “five” was omitted
from the original statement, “two added to five”, as the expression
of the number seven, and so “two added” became the name of the number
“seven”. An initial _tom_, _tum_, _tŭn_, or _diŭn_ occurs in the names
for 7, 17, 70, and 700. An evident derivative from the name for “hand”,
it denotes “five”. It is a cognate of _ŭnt_ in _ksókhŭnt_ “nine”,
literally “four-five”, and also with _tanchl_ in Mr Bartlett’s numbers
12-19; the correct form for “seven”, it would seem, should have been
_tan`l kaχkue_, etc., “five-two-added-on”; its initial _t_ is identical
with the_t_ in _t-aul_ (_t-anl_?), “ten”. The difference in the endings
of this prefix—the difference between an _m_ and an _n_—may easily be
explained. In the several vocabularies it is seen that one collector
fancied he heard an _m_ sound, while another, equally careful, heard an
_n_ sound. The fact appears to be that it is an obscure nasal sound,
which may readily be taken either for an _m_ sound or an _n_ sound by
the heteroglot. In Bartlett’s list of numerals _tan-tasó-que_ signifies
“eleven”, wherein _tasó-_ is the numeral “one”, as given by both M
Pinart and Sr Tenochio, _tan-_ the prefix under discussion, and _-que_
the suffix mentioned above, which was regarded as signifying “added,
more, plus”.
The first eight terms of the Yuman list are clearly modified forms
of a single original combination, which is apparently still retained
nearly unchanged in the Yavapai (18) of Corbusier, _hěwakě-spé_. The
signification and function of the final _-spé_ have been discussed
in the remarks on the probable derivations and meanings of the Yuman
names for “six”. The given conceptual element is evidently the term
_hěwakě-_, “two”. And _-spé_, as has been ascertained, signifying
“added, more, plus”, etc., the expression literally means “two added”,
i. e., to five, which is here understood, but unnecessary, since
“two added” has acquired the meaning “seven”, originally expressed
by the entire proposition. The Kiliwee (23) term _ẖooak-eleepai_,
“seven”, has literally the same meaning as the terms last under
discussion. It will be seen that the conceptual element is the term
_ẖooak_;, “two”, which is only another form of _hěwakě_, treated
above. Now, it is mathematically certain that if “two” be an element
of the concept “seven”, it must be _added_ to some preceding number
that will produce the result sought, and this number is of course
five. So it is presumptively certain that the element _-eleepai_ must
mean “added, laid onto, superadded, subjoined”. The Hummockhave (8)
_maik-kewik-enaich_ is composed of the conceptual element _kewik_,
“two”, the prefix _maik-_ meaning “more, over”, and the suffix
_-enaich_ (or _-kenaich_), which seems to be an ordinal or distributive
flexion. So that “two over, added”, is here likewise the expression
for the numeral “seven”. The next form, the Diegueño (14) of Dr Loew
is another example of the use of the numeral “two” with different
flexions, to express the number “seven”. An examination of this
Diegueño list of numerals shows that in such a form as _nio-khoak_,
“seven”, the initial _nio-_ is a prefix signifying “added, in addition
to”, etc., while the _khoak_ is a form of the numeral “two”. The next
ten forms, while apparently derivative from a common source, are
difficult of explanation from the material at hand. The same may be
said of the last four, three of which are evidently cognate and are
very probably shortened forms of the original represented by the first
group in the list. Take, for example, a form like (22) _hawake-zpé_,
and drop the final _-zpé_, as is done in some of the terms in the
“eight” list, and also the initial _ha-_, and the result is a form
_wake_, which in the dialects (6) and (9) would become _viiga_, _víka_,
which is the form of the digit “two” in these dialects. The form (7)
_bee-eeka_ is also merely the digit “two” of this dialect without any
index to show that it is not “two” rather than “seven”. The same thing
is to be noticed in the Serian lists, in which the form for thirteen
is in all respects the same as that for the numeral “eighteen”, both
apparently meaning merely “three added”.