328* 



THE SERI INDIANS 



[eth. axn. 17 



To see 



ahfimi 



akhiimuk 



gir 



amigi 



ouwerk 



eau 



iyib 



oom 



ewiouch 



ohum 



kewii 

 gadey 

 asUaamk 



Eight of the terms for "eye" iu the Ynman word lists are ido, hidho, or their vari- 

 ants, iu five Yuman dialects, Maricopa, Mohave, Hummockhave, Kutchan, and M'mat 

 (virtually in but three, for Hummockhave is but a subdialect of Mohave, and M'uiat 

 of Kutchan), and the remaining twenty-one examples are from an entirely diti'erent 

 stem or base which is apparently connected with a verb "to see," one of the forms 

 of which is eyiiuk (4), liei/iik (7), and ii/u-ok (6) ; the form ido and its several variants 

 is seemingly connected with iiido (6), "let us see'', apparently an imperative form, 

 iu a m;iuner similar to the connection between yii (2), " eye'', and its variants, and the 

 verb form ei/iiiik just cited. 



It will be seen from the table that okta aud x'ookta (or x'liktu) are the Serian forms 

 of the verb "to see". The form iktuj or ikiox', "eyes", recorded by .Sr Tenochio, is 

 the nominal form of that verb, the final ^' or x' heing, as it would appear, the plural 

 ending. The -rxs final of M Pinart's record as distinguished from Professor McGee's 

 mitto and Mr Bartlett's ito and aiiproxiraated in Sr Tenochio's iktox', is evidently plu- 

 ral in function. While the Serian material bearing on this question is, indeed, very 

 meager, it nevertheless seems proper to regard the apparent accordance between the 

 Serian term for "eye (eyes)" and the Yuman vocable, ido and its variants, of limited 

 prevaleucy, signifying "eye," as fortuitous rather than genetic. 



The comparative list of the Serian and the Yuman names for the "face" shows no 

 relationship between the two groups of languages. 



Tonqne 



A. ilps's 



B. ip'l 



C. hip.^l 

 1). 



Fool 



