III. tama 19. ěpá věχí II. demansú=“Indian”
IV. {tamá, tämmá, tammá 3. nisúke 24. epái
{=“homo”
{uami=“man, male”
II. delmá 16. nechuck 26. ipai=“Indian”
I. wanyu-ami=“young 17. gechak 15. ipaye
man”
3. apah 5. {senyeák 11. upáh, ûp-ă´
{senyeáks
19_a_. ěpá 12. seenyack I. {maha=“people”
{mahati=“Indian”
4. epá-che (pl.) 8. siniake 23. meẖale
13. epa 20. siñaacca 17. m’tee-pai
12. {epáh 4. sin’yaáke-che 12. ml-épáie
{epátch (pl.) (pl.)
7. thinyeahka 7. peepa
9. {çinyiäk 13. peepa-chamal
{çinyiáktc (pl.)
8. pipachi-taik=“many
men”
17. epa 24. sinquahín 9. pipate (pl. of man)
8. ipa 24a. ěssin 20. piipatse-pallenám
2. {ipa 15. sîin. syn 16. tepitetchetleowah
{ipa gŭli=“Indian”
5. {ipás (s doubtful) 27. sin 5. {matsh-tshámak
{ipátsh (pl.) {matsh-tshámk
19_b_. pá, pá´h 26. siñ 24_a_. ipai=“Indian”
10. pa 14. sing
18. {pa pa-hěmí=“large 6. hanya-aga
{man”
21. pa hŭrmí=“large man” 13. suyaka
22. pa-hami=“large man” 10. pogii
7. peepa, pé-paa 11. {pŭkí (Gilbert)
{pûkehi
9. {pipa pipate (pl.) 18. pukí
11. ŭpā´ (Gilbert) 22. peke
15. ecoúch 1. kweí iníniga=
“squaw, wife”
16. ecotche 2. make, ouidima=
“Indian woman”
14. igutch 21. měbĭsí
24_a_. ikute 23. kokoa
26. ikuĭtch ikwits I. wanki
27. ikwĭtc IV. wakoe (Laymon)
20. curacca wuctu, wuetu
23. kimai (Laymon)
24. equitchquahín huägin=“mulier”
II. huisin
Those philologists who have classed the Seri tongue as a dialect
of the Yuman stock have laid great stress on the alluring phonetic
accordance, supposedly indicative of genetic relationship, between
the Laymon (and probably Cochimi) _tamá_ or _tammá_, “man (homo)”,
and the Serian _kŭ´tŭmm_, _ktam_ or _eketam_, possibly of the same
signification—i. e., “man (homo)”, rather than “man (vir)”; but
the accompanying comparative list of vocables purporting to denote
“man (homo)” discloses the significant fact that _tamá_ (_tammá_)
belongs only to the Laymon, and (probably) the Cochimi dialects.
In Mr Bartlett’s Cochimi record, he wrote _delmá_, “man, hombre”,
and _guami_ (Spanish _g_), “husband”—that is, “male person”. From
certain Laymon texts with interlinear translations in Buschmann’s
“Die Spuren der aztekischen Sprache”, etc., the following forms of
the vocables in question have been extracted: _tammá_, “man (homo,
Mensch)”; _tamma-butel_, “this man”; _uami-butel_, “this man, this male
person”; _wami-jua_, “man (vir, Mann), male person”; _wakoe-butel_,
“this woman”; _gui-wuctu-jua_, “his woman”; _whanu_, “small, young, a
child”; _whanu-wami-jua_, “a small, or young, male person”, perhaps “a
boy”. Now, _wanju_ or _wanyu_, “young”, _wáhki_, “woman” (_-aki_ in
_wanju-aki_, “girl”—i. e., “young woman”); _ouami_, “(my) husband”,
correctly, “(my) male person”; _ouĭqua_, “(my) wife”, evidently a form
of _wáhki_, “woman”, are all Cochimi vocables. Dr Gabb, in his Cochimi
vocabulary, did not record the presumptively correct term denoting
“man”; for the word which he has written, _wanyuami_, and which he
has translated “man”, really signifies, “young male person”, rather
than “man (homo)”. This is unfortunate, because in Mr Bartlett’s
Cochimi, _delmá_ is rendered “man (homo)”, and the Cochimi of Padre
Clavigero has _tamá_, “man”, and the Laymon, _tamá_, _tammá_, or
_tämmá_, “man”, and there is seemingly no absolutely satisfactory
method of ascertaining whether the _l_ of Mr Bartlett’s _delmá_, “man”,
is genetic or not. But as the Laymon and the Cochimi are apparently
cognate dialects, it is probable that the form _delmá_ of Bartlett’s
Cochimi and the _tamá_ or _tämmá_ of the Laymon and the Cochimi of
Padre Clavigero are cognate vocables. The part of the terms which the
two dialects have in common is the final and usually accented _-má_;
in other words, _-má_ is the common conceptual element in the vocables
_delmá_ and _tamá_. This of course rests on the presumption that _tamá_
and _delmá_ are compound terms, having probably genetic relationship.
The following facts may aid in discovering the lexica constituting
the elements of the two words in question, and these, it is seen, are
_-má_, _del-_, and _ta-_. In Dr W. M. Gabb’s record of Cochimi words,
collected by him in the vicinity of San Borja and Santa Gertrudis about
the “center of the peninsula” of Lower California, the term “Indian” is
represented by _maha-ti_, and “people” by _maha_. On the same schedule
with the Cochimi Dr Gabb recorded a vocabulary of the Kiliwee, dwelling
150 miles “further north” at and near San Quentin. In this dialect,
which is Yuman, the word “Indian” is rendered by _kimai_, and “people”
by _meẖa-le_ (preferably _meχale_[335]). The apparently genetic
accordance between the Kiliwee word for “people” and the Cochimi terms
denoting “Indian” and “people” is brought into stronger light by a
comparison of the terms for “warrior”; in the Cochimi, _mac̲h̲-karai_
(_maχ´-karai_), in the Kiliwee, _maẖk-pkátai_ (_maχk-pkátai_). The
unquestioned kinship between these two dialects warrants the inference
that these two compound expressions, denotive of the same thing and
possessing at least one common element, _maχ-_ or _maχ´-_, must accord
approximately at least, in the signification of their heteromorphic
constituents.
[335] In Dr Gabb’s alphabet, an underscored _c̲h̲_ occurs, which,
he states, sounds “like soft German ‘ch’ as in ‘ich’”, and also
an underscored _ẖ_, which is, he says, “heavily aspirated”. For
convenience the character χ has been substituted for both these sounds,
except that for the former it is accented thus χ´.
In the Kiliwee _pah-kute_ signifies “a chief”, from _e-pa_, “Indian”,
hence “man” (primitively) and _kute_ for (_k_)_e-tai_, “large, great”,
hence “old”, found in such expressions as _sal-kootai_, “thumb”,
literally “large finger”, and _pah-tai_, “old”, but literally “old
man”. So the name for a chief may be rendered freely “the elder
person; the old man (the wise man)”. The Cochimi term _mac̲h̲-ka-é_,
as written by Dr Gabb, denotes “far”, while _mac̲h̲-i-kang-i-n̲g̲a_
means “near”. These vocables may preferably be written thus, _maχ´-kaé_
and _maχ´-kañ-iña_. The ending _-iña_ is a privative flexion or suffix
in Cochimi, forming derivatives with meanings directly adverse to
those of the primals; so the literal signification of _maχ´-kañ-iña_
is “not far”, hence “near”; but in _maχ´-kaé_ the final _-kaé_ is
the adjective “large, great”, having here an intensive function
signifying approximately “more”, while _maχ´-_ is evidently a form
of the proximate pronominative found in the terms “thou” and “ye”
in this group of languages. In the Laymon _kahal ka_, “water large
(is)”, for a “sea or stream of water”, _ka_ signifies “large, great”;
and the Cochimi _kättenyi_, “few, not much”, is literally _kätte-_
for (_k_)_etai_, “large, great, much, many”, and _-iñi_ the privative
denoting “not”. And the Laymon _metañ_, “many, much”, is evidently
from _m-_ for _ma_ (a proximate pronominative), _eta_ for the Cochimi
_etai_, “large, great, much, many”, and the final _-ñ_. Compare
Bartlett’s _modo_, “all, todos”, and _modoliñi_, “many, much”. Such
are some of the forms of the adjective signifying “great, large, much,
many”. There is also in the Cochimi an intensive _pa_, _ibal_, _ibá_,
which signifies “very”. This explains the presence of the _p-_ sound in
the term _maχk-pkátai_, the Kiliwee for “warrior”.
It has thus been shown that a probable connection exists between the
Cochimi terms _maha_, “people”, and _maha-ti_, “Indian”, on the one
hand, and the _maχ-_, inferentially signifying “man” in the Cochimi
and Kiliwee names for “warrior”, _maχ´-karai_ and _maχk-pkátai_,
and the _meχa-_ in the Kiliwee _meχa-le_, “people”, on the other.
The significance of the initial _ta-_ in _tämmá_ (_tamá_, _tammá_,
_tamal_, _tammalá_) seems to be that of a definitive pronominative; it
is found in the Cochimi of Dr Gabb and in the Laymon. Dr Gabb recorded
in his vocabulary _ta-ip_, “good”, but _ta-ip-ena_, “bad”, the final
_-ena_ being the characteristic Cochimi privative suffix; elsewhere
written _-iñi_. So it would seem that the stem is _-ip_, meaning “good,
desirable”. In Kiliwee _aχok_ (Dr Gabb’s _aẖok_) signifies “flesh,
meat”, while _aχok-m-gai_ denotes “deer”, literally “good, desirable
meat”, in which _m-gai_ signifies “good, desirable”; it is probably
connected with the term _ka_, “great”, and its variants noted above,
and so may also denote “abundance”. Under the word “love” Dr Gabb
has _m’gai-yip_, the free translation of which should read “greatly
desirable; abundantly good, well”. Thus _-ip_, or _-yip_, signifies
“desirable, good, pleasing to the sense”; in Laymon likewise the
initial _-ta_ is sometimes wanting, as in _wayp-mang_, “good (is)”,
as distinguished from _tahipo-mang_, “good (is)”. The final _-mang_
(_=mañ_) is a term apparently denoting “to exist, to live”, and is
possibly cognate with the _má_ (Kiliwee _me_) in the words discussed
above.
This, it would appear, is the origin of the _má_ in _tamá_, “man”.
The individual character of the initial _ta_ is suggested in what has
already been said in reference to its absence from such vocables as
_wayp-mang_ and _m’gai-yip_, in which the _wayp_ and the _yip_ are
identical with the _ip_ in _ta-ip_, “good”. This term _ta_ appears as
the relative “that” under the form _te_. It also appears as a prefix in
the Cochimi and Laymon numeral “one” and in the adjective _te-junoey_,
“a few”; also in the adjective _de-muejueg_, “all”; and again in the
peculiar numeral “one”, namely _du-juenidi_.
Such appears to be the analysis of the Cochimi and Laymon _tamá_,
“man”. The form of it recorded by Mr Bartlett, _del-má_, “man”,
compared with his _de-ma-nsú_, “Indian”, is seemingly a valid
confirmation of the foregoing derivation, because this _l_ in _de-l-má_
is probably identical with the final _l_ or _lá_ in _tama-l_ and
_tamma-lá_, “man”, cited above. In the Cochimi for “water”, _ca-l_,
its true character is partly seen; _cal oso_ signifies “river”, but
in _caa-pa-l_ (Gabb’s _kaχ-pa-ra_), “sea”, it becomes a suffix, the
element _pa_ signifying “much, great”, and Dr Gabb’s form shows that
in the dialect he recorded its form is _ra_; again in _cal ka_,
“lake”, literally “large water”, it is a suffix. It appears again in
Mr Bartlett’s _del-mag_, “light”, as compared with Dr Gabb’s _ma-ahra_
(=_maah-ra_), “fire”; it appears evident that the _mag_ of _del-mag_
and the _maah_ of _maah-ra_ are cognate, so that _de-l_ is here found
as a prefix, as it is in Mr Bartlett’s _de-l-má_, “man”. Thus it is
that _delmá_ and _dema-nsú_, “Indian”, of Mr Bartlett and _tamá_ and
_tammalá_ of Hervas, Duflot de Mofras, and Miguel del Barco are cognate.
It accordingly appears that the assumed linguistic relationship between
the forms discussed above and the Serian _kŭ’tŭmm_ (_ktam_, _tam_),
“man”, is very improbable, because there are no evidences nor data
indicative that the Serian forms have had a common linguistic tradition
with the Cochimi and Kiliwee forms discussed above. It seems proper,
therefore, to reject such assumed relationship between the Yuman and
the Serian vocables in this comparison.
The comparative list of names purporting to signify “woman” in both the
Serian and the Yuman tongues reveals not a single phonetic or lexic
accordance that may even suggest linguistic kinship between the two
groups of vocables.
The comparative list of terms purporting to signify “people” and
“Indian” in the Serian and Yuman groups of languages exhibits, in a
manner similar to those already examined, the same decisive lack of
phonetic accordance between the vocables compared.