I. ethatta etadwachetibawaha (etadwachetibawaha)
II. masa
1. uhát kathâ´t
2. tsata kethuda mbá
3. cowwaick
4. hatch hatakúltis
5. χát χatelwís; χatelwísh χattekúltis
6. akhatchora kuksara
7.{hotchóuk hooktharu
{hatchóka (Gibbs) hūkthara (Gibbs)
8. hachochoke hookhare
9. hattcâka (pl. hukçára
hattcâktca)
10. akhat gesat
11. hot; aha (Renshawe) kthat; cathă´t (Renshawe)
12. hoowée
13. aẖatchookachook aẖateleeway
14. khat
15. h’hút hutch’kôlk
16. hotchukchuk hutchpah
17. aẖot aẖotoopai
18. kuthá’rt kuthá’rt hána
19. katháta nimmîta (nimiwi)
20. jatsocsóc jatelué
21. a`hat; ahŭt
22. kehér
23. itat milti latkil
24. h’hut h’takulch
huwi. (Kutchan,
Bartlett)
The comparative list of names for “dog” shows that the Seri term was
very probably adopted from the Piman group of tongues, and there is
therefore no apparent relation between the Serian and the Yuman terms.
The Serian name for “coyote” shows no kinship with the Yuman names for
this animal.
The Serian names for “wolf”, _χ´ekkos_ and _hasho-kévlch_ (=“red
hasho”), show no apparent linguistic relationship to the Yuman names
for this animal. It is possible that the Serian terms have some
affinity to the Piman terms for “dog” and “wolf”.
Notwithstanding the unqualified conclusion of Herr J. C. E. Buschmann
as to the separateness of the Waïcuri (Guaicuri), the late Dr Daniel
G. Brinton, in positive terms, though from adverse evidence deduced
from precarious data, included this and the Seri tongue in the Yuman
stock of languages. Speaking of a comparative list of words specially
selected from the Cochimi, Waïcuri, Seri, and Yuma, he says: “The
above vocabularies illustrate the extension of the Yuman stock to
the southward. The Cochimi and Waïcuri are remote dialects, but of
positive affinities.”[342] Yet of seven terms selected by him from
the Waïcuri to prove these “positive affinities” not one has any
phonetic accordance with the term with which it is compared. This, it
would seem, should have sufficed to eliminate the Waīcuri from the
Yuman stock. Pending further research, this language should stand
independently.
[342] The American Race, p. 335.
Of the conjectured glottologic kinship of the Seri to the Yuman
stock Dr Brinton says:[343] “The relationship of the dialect to the
Yuman stock is evident.” Yet out of twenty-one terms which he chose
to exhibit the grounds of his faith only six (those for “tongue”,
“eye”, “head”, “water”, “man”, and “teeth”) show any definite phonetic
resemblance. This number, however, can certainly be reduced by careful
scrutiny. Thus, he cites the Laymon and Cochimi _tamá_ as a cognate of
the Seri _eketam_. The Laymon and Cochimi term, it must be remembered,
does not occur in this form in a single other tongue admittedly Yuman.
Now, before this vague resemblance can establish relationship it
must first be shown that the terms compared have a common linguistic
tradition and that a form of _tamá_ is or has been an element common to
the other dialects of the Yuman group. But an analysis of the Cochimi
term shows no trustworthy ground for considering these terms related.
So this certainly reduces the number of conjectured accordances to five.
[343] Loc. cit.
Comparison is made by Dr Brinton between the Serian _ata´st_ (_îtast_,
_hitast_), “tooth” and “teeth” (collectively), and the vocable _ehdoh_
(Lieutenant Bergland’s), “tooth”, variants of which are common to
only three of the twenty-odd Yuman dialects. He made this comparison
evidently under the impression that the first part of the Seri term
_ata´st_ (_itast_, _hitast_) signifies “tooth”. But such is not the
fact. The first part of this Seri vocable signifies “mouth” (as may be
seen in the discussion of the comparative list of names for “tooth”)
and the latter part “stone”. The term _îtast_, “tooth”, is, therefore,
literally “stone of the mouth”. This is certainly not the signification
of the Yuman terms, and so the comparison is invalid, and the number
of apparent accordances is reduced to four. By some oversight it seems
Dr Brinton omitted from this comparison the Cochimi _hastaá_, “tooth”;
but this collocation has been made by others. Now, this term _hastaá_
belongs exclusively to the Cochimi dialect, and before becoming a means
of comparison would have to be shown to be a vocable common to the body
of Yuman terms having a common linguistic tradition, which has not been
done. Moreover, the phonetic obstacles barring a way to a fruitful
comparison of this term with the Serian are quite insuperable—the
assumed loss of the first half of the Seri term, the acquirement by the
Cochimi of the initial _h_ sound and of the final accented syllables
_-aá_, or the converse process. This, it seems safe to say, renders
this comparison likewise invalid.
The Seri term _in[=tl]ash_, “hand”, has certainly no phonetic
accordance with the peculiar Yuman _israhl_, which is from the Yuma or
Kutchan record of Lieutenant Eric Bergland, nor, indeed, has it any
accordance with any other Yuman term for hand. The presence of the
_r_ sound in it supplies the peculiar feature of the term; but it may
be used only to lengthen the following vowel (though this is only an
assumption). This form is peculiar because there is none like it in
about thirty Yuma vocabularies, representing about twenty dialects, in
the archives of the Bureau of American Ethnology. A careful inspection
of the comparative list of the Seri and the Yuman names for “arm”,
“hand”, “finger”, “thumb”, and “fingernail” will demonstrate the
utter futility of the comparison under consideration, for there is no
accordance between the Seri and the Yuman terms.
Elsewhere herein, in discussing the terms for “head” and “hair”, “eye”,
“tongue”, and “water”, it is shown that there is no apparent linguistic
relationship between the Serian terms on the one hand and the Yuman
on the other, and those explanations dissipate entirely the suspected
accordances of Dr Brinton.