TEN

_Serian_

A. khóhnŭtˡ, _khóh-nŭt´_

B. honachtl, _ho-nachtl_

C. χonalχ´, _χo-nalχ´_, kanlχ, _ka-nlχ´_

D. taul (tanl?)

_Yuman_

6. aráabá

9. arháp

7. arrapa

8. raphawaich

18. buwáwi

1. huwava

19. uábi

2. uave

11. uwawa, (h)wáwa

10. varuk, vuáruk

22. wáwe

3. sahhoke

12. sahóohk

21. sahóka

13. sauhook

15. shahôck

20. shahahjóc (j=χ)

4. shahóque

5. shaχúk

16. sharhoke

17. shauhook

14. selgh-iamát

23. chepam-mesig

III. naganna ignimbal demuejueg=“todas las manos”

I. nyavani-chaqni

The Serian forms of the numeral “ten” are apparently cognate, being

composed, it would seem, of the same elements. Thus they are mere

variants of a common original expression, signifying, literally, “two

fives”, or what originally was the same thing, “two hands”.

The element _khóh-_ in (A) _khólnŭut’_ represents _ghá‘k:(kha‘k)_

or _kō´k_, as it is also written, signifying “two”, and _-nŭt’_ is

the slightly disguised name for “hand” and “finger”, being also

transcribed as _-nachtl_, _-nalχ´_, _-nlχ_, and lastly _-aul_. Compare

these carefully with the words denoting “arm, hand, finger”, in this

language, and it will be seen that the spelling of _khóh-_ varies

in the several vocabularies from _khóh-_, _ho-_, _χo-_, to _ka-_,

respectively. The derivation of the _t_, or rather _tä_, in _taul_ of

Sr Tenochio, is not evident, but seems to be cognate with the prefix

_tom-_, _tum-_, _tŭn-_, or _diŭn-_, already noticed, making _taul_ thus

signify “five added”, i. e., to five, and so producing “ten units”.

Such seems to be the evident resolution of the Serian names for the

numeral “ten”. But _taul_ may have been miswritten for _ta-an`l_.

The first four terms of the Yuman list are plainly based on the numeral

“five”, expressed by _sarap_. The form _raphawaich_ (8) is evidently a

shortened form of _saraphowwaich_, literally “two fives”, or, what was

the same thing at the beginning, “two hands”. The first term, _sarap_,

signifies “five, finger”, denotively, but its literal or connotive

signification is “entire, whole, full, complete, collectively”, a

meaning which was suggested in the discussion of the numeral “five”.

And _howwaich_ is the form of the digit “two” in this dialect.

The next nine forms are so contracted, irregular, and, perhaps,

miswritten that an analysis of them is a matter of doubt and

difficulty, but the following ten terms are cognate and signify “two

fives (hands)”, or, denotively, “ten”. In the comparative list of

names for the “arm, hand, finger”, etc., _shah_, _shawas_, _shawarra_,

and _eesarlya_ are a few of the many variants of _säl_, “arm, hand,

finger”, etc. So, in such a form as _sahhoke_ (3) the _sah_ is the name

for “hand” and _hoke_ is the numeral “two”, the combination signifying

“two fives, hands”, or “ten”. The other nine terms are but variants

of the original of this compound. In _selgh-iamát_ (14), _selgh_ for

_isalgh_ is the element denoting “hand”, or “five”, while _iamat_ means

“added to, upon, over”, there being the subaudition of the element

denoting “five”. Hence the original combination meant “five added to

five”, or “ten”. This is a strict application of the quinary system.

The Kiliwee term, _chepam-mesig_ (23) signifies literally “one

_chepam_”. If reference be made to the “five” list, it will be seen

that there _sol-chepam_ signifies “five”, or, to be exact, is the

translation of the term “five”. Now, the element _sol-_ of this

compound is a variant of _esal_, “hand”, while _chepam_, judging from

analogy, must signify “the whole, entire, the complete”, collectively

“all”. Moreover, the Kiliwee terms for “fingers (dedos)” and “toes

(dedos del pié)”are _salchepa_ and _emechepah_, respectively, wherein

the element _chepah_ is added to _esal_, “hand”, and to _eme_, “leg”.

Hence it may be inferred that _chepam-mesig_ signifies “one complete

count of all the fingers”, and so “ten”. The next is Cochimi, in which

_naganna_ means “hand”, and the last term (I) appears to be miswritten.

It will be seen from these partial analyses of the names for the digit

“ten” that there is no linguistic relationship between the Serian and

the Yuman terms.

The Seri Indians. (1898 N 17 / 1895-1896 (pages 1-344*)) · 第 181 / 227 题