_Serian_
A. ksókhŭnt, _ksókh-ŭnt_
B. sohántl, _soh-ántl_
C. soχanthe, _soχ-anthe_, ksovikanlχ´
D. ksobbejoaul (j=χ)
_Yuman_
9_a._ hailyuthu
1. halathuya
11. halathúya
10. halathúig
22. halesúwi
19. halěsúyi
2. halseye
18. húlěthúyi
3. hamhinmoke
13. hoomhoomook
17. hoomhoomook
15. humhummôck
4. humhummóque
12. humhamóok
21. hŭmhummúka
20. jumjamúç (umχamúk?)
5. χemχemúk
8. muke
16. n’yimhummoke
26. nĭmhŭmmōk
23. m’sigk-tkmat
14. nitchibab, (ni(o)tchibab)
6. paaya
7. paeeya
9_b_. páia
I. quac̲h̲era-vampai
The first three Serian terms for “nine” are evidently forms of a common
original, signifying “four added to five”. It is evident that _ksō´kh-_
in (A) _ksō´kh-ŭnt_ is the same element as _-ksō´k_ in _ūnçtksō´k_,
“forty”, and _-kschō´k_ in _ŭnz-untçkŭkschō´k_, “400”. The element
_-ŭnt_ here is a name for “five”. Its literal meaning is “hand”,
which may be gathered from the following citations: _ŭnol´k_=“hand”;
_mĭ´noŭl´t_=“arm”; _ŭnulte-mŭ´ka`p_=“middle finger”, in which _ŭnulte_
means “finger (or hand)”. These are from the vocabulary of Professor
McGee. Then M Pinart records _innolχ´_, “arm”, _in[=tl]ash_ “hand”,
_inol’tis_, “finger, index finger”, _inol’tip_ “ring finger”. And Mr
Bartlett writes _inoyl_, “arm”, _inossiskersk_, “hand”, _inosshack_,
“fingers”. This _-ŭnt_ will be further treated when the numeral “ten”
is under discussion.
While it is evident that the first eight forms of the Yuman list are
but variants from a common original, it is not, however, so clear what
the original signification of the combination was. But as there can not
be any question of relationship between these and the Serian terms,
this fact will not affect the result of this study. The next terms of
the Yuman list are variants of an entirely different combination of
elements. The forms (15) _humhum-môck_ and (12) _humhamóok_ may be
taken as characteristic of these terms. Now, it is plain that there
is here duplication of the stem _hum-_ or _ham-_, “three”, making the
literal sense of the combination to be “three threes”, which of course
gave the required meaning. The Cochimi (23) _m’sigk-tkmat_ contains the
element _m’sig_, “one”, and the final _tkmat_, which appears to mean
“lacking, wanting, or less”. And in the Diegueño (14) _nitchibab_ for
_niotchibab_ a still different method of expressing “nine” is found.
In discussing the numeral “seven” and “eight” the signification of
the initial _nio-_ was ascertained to be “added to, over, plus”, and
_tchibab_ is of course the numeral “four”. The original expression,
then, was “four added to five”, producing the required number, “nine”.
The next three forms, though evidently cognate, are, like the first
group, not analyzable from the data to be obtained from the meager
material at present accessible. The last form is doubtful. These
analyses show no relationship between the Serian and the Yuman terms.