_Head_ _Hair_
14. iltá khaltá
15. hu-lchte-kamo hu-lchsta
16. tenah-cumoh hetltar (= hetltā)
24. hu-ch’lta hu-ch’lmo
24_a_. ăhú (also h`al-ta (= χal-ta)
“beak, bill”)
17. ẖo (= χo) ẖ’lemo (= χlemo)
27. h`l-ta (= χl-ta) h`l-ta (= χl-ta)
26. mă-whl ẖ`o (= χo) hl-ta
(also “beak, bill”)
25. hŭsta? hŭsta
It seems clear, furthermore, that _iltá_ (14) is merely a curtailed
example of _khaltá_ (14), for it is clear that this _iltá_ is a cognate
with the _h`lta_ (27), the initial _h`_-sound of which, Mr Henshaw
says, represents a rough guttural utterance (represented herein by
the character χ). In (27) of the comparative list _h`lta_, expresses
both “head” and “hair”, thus completing the circuit and making _iltá_
cognate with _khaltá_, since it is plain that _h`alta_ (_χalta_) of
24_a_, _hlta_ of 26, and _h`l-ta_ of 27, the initial sound in each
being, as shown above, a rough guttural are related to _khaltá_. The
term _hu-ch’lmo_ (24) is a compound of _hu-_, “head”, and _-ch’lmo_, an
evident cognate with the element _-gŭlma_ or _-kělěme_ ( _=kělěmĭs_)
noticed above, denoting “hair”; hence, the combination signifies “hair
of the head”. In like manner the H`taäm or San Tomaseño form (17)
_ẖ’lemo_ may be explained. In this dialect _ẖo_ (_=χo_) signifies
“head”, and an original _ẖolemo_ (_=χo-lěmĭs_), signifying “hair of the
head”, became contracted to the form in question, namely, _ẖ’lemo_. In
the Santa Isabella record of Mr Henshaw _hŭsta_ signifies “hair”, but
_hŭsta-kwarŭr_ is given for “head”, while _ŭs-tŭk-ŭm-ō_ is translated
“skull”; the last expression should have been written _(h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō_.
Under the caption “robe of rabbit skins”, _h`kwĭr_ is found, but under
“skin” in “Parts of the Body” of his schedule, _`nyakwăt_ (26) and
_n’kwěr_ (25) are found, both meaning “my skin”; Corbusier’s Mohave
record has _himát-makwil_ rendered “skin of man”, but meaning “skin
of the body”, _himát_ signifying “body”, and _makwil_, “skin”. The
Mesa Grande term for skin is given as _lĭmĭs_, a vocable which has
already been discussed. So it must be that the foregoing _hŭsta-kwarŭr_
signifies “skin of the hair” or “skin of the head”, if _hŭsta_ is also
a synonym for “head”. The final _-ŭr_ in the compound in question is
due to the misapprehension of the rolled or trilled _r_-sound with
which the term for skin terminates. The element _-kŭmō_ of the vocable
_(h)ŭstŭ-kŭmō_, rendered “skull”, is also a factor in the Diegueño
terms for “head” in numbers (15) and (16) of the comparative list; so
that it is highly probable that these terms signify “skull” rather
than “head”. And, lastly, it is equally probable that the expression
(18) _kumpaiya kûwâwâ_ signifies “hair of the whole head (skull)”
rather than “head” only; for the initial _kum-_ is presumptively the
cognate of the forms _-cumōh_ and _-kŭmō_, denoting in the compounds
already noted “skull”, while _-paiya_ signifies “all”, and _kûwâwâ_
“hair”. There appears to be a relationship between the terms for
“head” and “hair” in (12_b_) _oomwhelthe_, “head”, (3) _amawhach_ and
_mowh´l_, “hair”, and (26) _mă-whl_, “head”. The explanation of the
term _hu-lchsta_, (15), denoting “hair”, is probably to be found in
its resolution into _hu_ (_χu_), “head”, and _lchsta_ for a form of
_hŭsta_, “hair”, discussed above; the term signifies, therefore, “hair
of the head”. In like manner _huch´lta_ (24), rendered “head” there,
seems rather to mean “hair of the head”, by its reduction to _hu_,
“head”, and _ch´lta_, for a form of _khalta_ (= _χalta_), “hair”.
The Serian variants of the term denoting “head”, are respectively (A)
_aʰleht_. (B) _ih´lit_, and (C) _ill´it_. These forms certainly
have no kinship with the Yuman terms discussed above; they have a
totally alien aspect. The Serian terms for “hair” are respectively (A)
_aʰleht_, (B) _ina_ (“feather” rather than “hair”), (C) _ill´it
kopt´no_, and (D) _obeke_, and while the last has an aspect foreign to
the other terms classed as Serian, none of the vocables appear to offer
ground upon which to predicate relationship between the Yuman and the
Serian. For a further explanation of _obeke_ turn to the discussion of
“tooth”.
The comparative list of Serian and Yuman names for the “nose” reveals
no evidence of linguistic relationship between the two groups; but an
inspection of the Yuman lists for “head”, “hair”, and “nose”, exhibits
a close connection between a number of the names for “head”, “nose”,
and “beak, bill”.