_Serian_
A. páhkwūū
B. phraque
C. kshoχolka, p’χakχue
D. osrojoskum (osχ´oχoskum?)
_Yuman_
23. ẖamiak-eleepai
10. hamúge-shbe-k
22. hamuke-zpé
18. hěmukě-spé
18. hěmukě-spé
11. hmaga-spe
1. humuga-spe
2. moge-shbe
19. múkě-shpë
9. móka
7. moo-ooka
6. muugá
16. chip-hoke
12. chip-hóok
21. hipp-óka
3. sep-hoke
13. seepa-hook
4. sepp-óque
5. sep-χúk
15. sepp-ôck
17. shepa-hook
20. siip-jóc (j=χ)
25. tcěp-hōk
26. tcěp-hōk
8. maike-homok-enaich
14. nio-khamuk
24. pakai-hin-awach
I. nyakivamivapai
The Serian numeral “eight” is expressed by two different terms. The
first is based on the numeral three, and the second on the digit four.
The former is the remaining factor of an original expression which
signified by uttered elements “three added to five (=the full hand)”,
but the need for economy of expression led to the suppression of the
uttered element denoting “five”, as soon as the shorter “three added”
acquired the usual signification of “eight”. The basis of the digit
is _kō´pka_ or _kapχ´a_, “three”, with the suffix _-kwūū_ (_-kχue_,
_-que_), presumably denoting “added, plus”. This represents the usual
method of forming this digit. The second term, _kshoχolka_, is that
which is presumably based on the numeral “four”. This is the form
given by M Pinart. But Sr Pimentel, citing Sr Tenochio, writes this
_osrojoskum_, which at first sight appears to be quite different
from the other; yet the _r_ of the latter evidently stands for a
modified _χ_ and the _j_ for a _χ_, and making these substitutions
the term becomes _osχ´oχoskum_, which is approximately the form
in which Professor McGee and Mr Bartlett wrote this digit in the
numeral “eighty”. Now, it is self-evident that if the element “four”
constitute a factor in the combination denoting “eight”, it must be
added to itself by addition or multiplication, and the result will be
the same in either event. The final _-olka_ appears also as _-otkŭm_,
_-olchkom_, and _-oskum_, in these Serian vocabularies, either in
the numeral “four” or its multiples. The origin and signification of
this ending are not clear; but taking into consideration the great
variations in the spelling of its recorded forms, especially in so
far as the consonant sound preceding the _k_-sound is concerned, it
may not be presumptive to adopt the _s_-sound (though _sχ´_ may be
more correct) as that which represents approximately at least the true
sound, for it varies from _l_, _t_, _lch_, to _s_. And it has been seen
that the final _-um_ is a flexion denotive of serial or consecutive
counting and so not a part of the stem. Then it is seen that _-s-k-_
(the last two hyphens representing uncertain vowels) is the termination
requiring explanation. Now, it is probable that this termination is
identical in meaning and origin with the _-sūk_, _-shoχ_, _-sho_,
_-schoch_, and _-shroj_ (= _-shχ´oχ_) terminating the forms of the
digit “six”. If this identification be correct (and there is no present
reason to doubt it), it signifies “repeated, again, duplicated”, as
was suspected and stated in the discussion of the forms of the numeral
“six”. So granting this derivation to be correct, _kshoχolka_, then,
signifies “four repeated”, which of course denotes “eight”.
In the Yuman list, the first eleven forms are evidently composed of
the numeral “three” and a suffix signifying “added, plus, more than”,
but the last three of the group want this suffix, a fact due perhaps
to the fault of the collector rather than to linguistic development.
The terminations _-eleepai_ and _-shbe-k_ and its variants have
already been explained when treating of the numeral “seven”. And
the twelve forms beginning with _chip-hoke_ (16) are variants from
a common original composed of the numerals “two” and “four”. It
will be readily seen that _chip-_ in such a form as _chip-hoke_ is
a contraction of a form such as _tchibabk_ (14), “four”, _chepap_
(24), “four”, as may be seen in the Yuman list of terms for the digit
“four”. Now, the next portion of the term is _-hoke_, which is but
a slightly disguised numeral “two”, as may be seen by reference to
the schedules of the numeral “two”. Compare _ẖooak_ (23), _huáka_
(19), _uake_ (2), and _hěwáki_ (18), all signifying “two”. Now, the
next term, _maike-homok-enaich_ (8), is a combination of _maike_,
“above, over, more than”, _homok_, “three”, and the ending _-enaich_
(or _-kenaich_), which may be either an ordinal or a distributive
flexion. The form _nio-khamuk_ (14) is a combination of the prefix
_nio-_, signifying “added, above, or more than”, and the conceptual
term _khamuk_, “three”, the expression signifying “three over, or added
to”. The next two examples are evidently irregular, if not spurious.
The form _pakaikhin-awach_ is composed of _pakai_, “seven”, _khin-_,
“one”, and the suffix _-awach_, “added to”. Now, the last, the Cochimi
_nyaki-vamivapai_, appears to be erroneous. It contains the term
_nyaki_ for _ginyaki_, “hand”, but the remainder of the expression is
composed of elements that are not comparable to anything in the meager
material at present accessible. The Serian and the Yuman terms herein
show no relationship.