21. akwarra bóka
8. iqui kowawakochain
2. o´kve okenedia kivo; kiva, kiwa
3. ama haishunat
24. amâi equi
13. amai k´wus
9. amáia kubaúk; kubaugě=“it is raining”
12. ammai muhheé; ikwi=“cloud”
10. amayaá kivvoga
6. amaya kovauk
1. hámasia=“heavens” ékwi mädshiga
23. emmai quicha
I. embai
15. mâi paou
16. mai (i in like) pow
17. mai qui
4. mâiche oaûk
5. maish
14. may ikvny
11. maya (Renshawe) kw´voga
20. mmái obáuc
22. meya
11. miyá (Gilbert)
7. {ummmayya {coolowwa; hobauk (Yuma)
{ummáia {kobauk
18. ûmiyä´ ikwiwó=“rain”; ikwí=“clouds”
19. ěkwi=“clouds”; tíwo=“rain”;
ekwariga=“the sky is cloudy”
While the seeming resemblance between the Yuman terms for “sky,
heaven”, and the Serian vocables of the same meaning is more
apparent than real, yet the kinship of the Seri with the Yuman group
of languages has been conjectured upon data of which this merely
fortuitous similarity was made a factor.
The derivation of the characteristic Yuman term _amai_, the variants
of which constitute, with the exception of three vocables, the entire
list here compared, is evidently from the stem of the Mohave _amail_,
“above, on top”, _amaile_, “higher”, the Yavapai _miävi_, “up”, and
also the Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), _amiki_, “over”. In the number-names,
such as those for “eleven” and “twelve”, this vocable becomes _maik_
and _maga_ in Maricopa, in Bartlett’s Coco-Maricopa, and in Cochimi,
and _maike_ in Hummockhave, _amike_ in Yuma (Bennett’s MS.), _umaiga_
and _umai_ in M’mat, _amaik_ in Mohave (Gibbs), _mae_ in Kutchan,
_amaik_ in Kutchan (Englehardt), _emmia_ in Santa Catalina; in all the
number-names in which these variants occur they have a single meaning,
namely, “above, over, on top, added to, plus”. Thus it is evident that
the Yuman variants of _amai_, “sky, the heavens”, are cognate with the
auxiliaries or flexions of number-names cited above. Hence, originally
the Yuman concept of the “sky” was “the place above, the higher place,
or the place on top”.
The derivation of the Seri vocable _amime_ or _aměmma_, “sky, the
heavens”, while bearing only a fortuitous resemblance to the Yuman
terms noted above, is not traceable from the meager material at
present accessible. Strictly speaking, the extent of the phonetic
similarity between the Yuman and the Seri vocable is the possession of
an _m-_sound in the first syllable, which is evidently the dominant
one in the Yuman terms. On the other hand, the Serian vocable has two
syllables dominated by the _m-_sound, and the foregoing explanation of
the derivation of the Yuman vocable, if correct, as it seems to be,
does not supply any means for explaining this duality of syllables
dominated by an _m-_sound in the Serian term. For unlike the Yuman
dialects of the present the Seri tongue does not duplicate the stem of
a word or any part thereof for any purpose whatsoever (though in the
past the Seri may or may not have had the duplicative process, for a
language can not only do what it is accustomed to do, but may at all
times acquire new habits). So it would seem that without historical
evidence to support it this comparison is invalid as an indication of
linguistic kinship between the vocables compared, and its evidence
regarding the conjectured relationship of the two groups of languages
is negative.