COMPARATIVE LEXICOLOGY 



325* 



Xoae 



. abo 



. ho, cbiuattuksab 



. h'ho 



. ho 



. ho 



. ho 



• ij" (i=x) 



. ho6-cbe (pi. f) 



. mee-boo,="tby nose" 



|ee-h6o 



leho-tcbe (pi.) 

 . hu 

 . hu 

 . hu 

 . hu 

 . ihu 

 . ihu 



ihibii 



Ibibiiv-tca (pi.) 

 . khu 



. i;[u-u8b (pi.) 

 . epe 



. hon'yapa 

 . yaya (Gilbert) 



yaiiva (Renshawe) 

 . yaiya 

 . yayo 

 . vicbpyuk 

 . buicbil 

 . ah'u (^a;|;u) 

 . a'bii; h'6 (^a,Yo) 

 . eb'u (^e^u) 

 . b'o(;(o),="beak,bill" 

 . ri-bu='- beak, bill" 



This comparison of the Seri and Yuman terms for " bead ", to ascertain 1 inguistic 

 relationship, seems barren of any but a negative result. It is true that there is an 

 apparent resemblance between the Seri and the Diegueno terms, and a still more 

 doubtful one between the Seri and the Kutchau. It is signiticaut that the twenty- 

 odd other Yuman dialects employ for " bead'' an entirely different term. The kin- 

 ship of the Seri term to either the Kutchan or the Diegucfio is therefore nothing 

 more than a possibility, and it seems safe to reject it. The phonetic discordances, 

 and the fact that there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Dii'gueuo 

 term was ever prevalent in the other Yuman dialects, warrant this rejection. 



The following analysis may be of service here. A careful comparison of the Die- 

 gueno terms for "bead", and "hair" indicates that the form (14) ilta, ''bead'', is 

 very probably a shortened khalta, "hair". In the Diegueno, Santa Isabella, and 

 Mesa Grande vocabularies Mr Heusbaw recorded several names for "hair" and 

 "head" which may serve to aid in the explanation of the words in the following 

 comparative list. In his Diegueno record Ihnis and Itmi, variants evidentlj' of a 

 common original, stand for "bair, feathers, skin, and fish scales", as in the entries 

 liallaii li'mis, "rabbit skin". Itisau Ihnis, "fish scales", kukwai}) Ifiiiis, "deerskin". 



