NUMERALS
The Eyak numeral system is essentially decimal on the grand scale. The basic system
seems stable, showing no variation among modern speakers, or, among older sources, as
far as those go (with exception of the final stages of Eyak at Yakutat, for which see final
subsection, on older sources). The stability, the fact that they were remembered as well as
can be shown here, and their use in texts, for example, including measurements, are good
evidence that Eyak numerals, at least the digits, continued in actual use as long as did the
language. They were not replaced by English numerals, as happened in many other
Alaskan languages.
This discussion of Eyak numerals closes with a subsection on earlier sources. Those
are not inconsiderable. Unlike other aspects of Eyak grammar – insofar as numeral
systems belong to grammar – the numerals are indeed documented in nearly all of the
early sources, from Rezanov 1805 on.
Morphology of abstract counting
The numerals from one to ten are as follows, with the suffix -ih attached to ‘1, 2’,
and ‘5’, for abstract counting, for unclassified nouns, and for singular human. (For
counting classified nouns, or plural humans, see following subsection.)
1 LinhG-ih
2 la’d-ih
3 t’uhLga’
4 qAlahqa’ga’
5 ch’a:n’-ih
6 tsi’i:n
7 la’dits’i:n
8 q’adits’i:n
9 guts’de:
10 dAGa:q’
The Eyak numeral system cannot be very ancient, as of all these, only ‘1’ and ‘2’
have Athabaskan cognates, from PAE *LEnq’ and *na’-.
‘3’ and ‘4’, appear to be postpositional phrases with postposition o-ga’ ‘like o’. The o
in ‘3’ is t’uhL- of unknown meaning, not otherwise occurring. The o in‘4’ is qAlah-qa’,
itself very possibly another postpositional phrase o-qa’ ‘among/between o’; qAlah is of
unknown meaning unless that is itself another postpositional phrase o-lah ‘around o’ with
qa- < PAE *qwA- ‘place, event’ as o. That, however, would make ‘4’ an anomalous
triple postpositional phrase ‘like between around place/event’.
‘5’ ch’a:n’- is very probably related to -ch’Alih ~ --ch’a:n- ‘forearm’.
‘6’ ts’i:n has no clear other meaning or association, though cf. Athabaskan *ts’En
‘bone’.‘7’ is obviously composed of that preceded by la’di- probably to be interpreted as
ordinal ‘2nd ts’i:n’; it can not be either ‘2 x 6’ nor ‘2 + 6’. 8 is the same preceded by
q’Adi-, which is perhaps a reduction of q’ah-dA- ‘finally’, q.v. in dictionary. In Tlingit
‘6-7-8’ pattern similarly: 1-dooshu, 2-dooshu, 3-dooshu, though only ‘7’ is exactly like
the Eyak, the Eyak lacking the ‘1-‘ in ‘6’, and in ‘8’ having instead q’Adi-, certainly not
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
1
to be identified with Eyak ‘3’. (The Tlingit -dooshu is itself nothing like Eyak ts’i:n,
being of verbal origin, ‘extending to’, Jeff Leer p.c. 11/1409.)
‘9’ is presumably to be segmented guts’-de:, but neither segment can be identified.
‘10’ may well be also a postpositional phrase with dAGa:- as o of o-q’ ‘on o’. Cf. the
alternation of that with o-X in dAGa:X for the -teen’s and below ; dAGa:- is either
locational dAG- ‘above’ with augment -a:-, or it is composed of a prefix or proclitic dA-,
with several possible identifications, and stem -Ga:- not otherwise attested as such,
though conceivably cognate with Athabaskan *-Gan’- ‘arm’, Eyak -GAla’ ‘shoulder’. Cf.
in this semantic connection Tlingit kei-jin ‘5’, jin-kaat ‘10’, where jin is ‘had’, but keiand -kaat are of unclear meaning, and there is some connection with the Tlingit numerals
at least in that the Tlingit pattern for 6-8, i.e.1-3-dooshu, is similar to the Eyak 6-8, and
that Eyak ‘20’ is a direct loan from Tlingit.
In sum, clearly ‘1-10’ is a hodgepodge, divisible into 6 subgroups, ‘1-2, 3-4, 5, 6-7-8,
9, 10’: ‘1-2’ are cognate with Athabaskan; ‘3-4’ are both postpositional phrases, ‘o-like,
equal to o’ with o of unclear identity; ‘5’ is ‘forearm’ < *’hand’? (cf. ‘10’); ‘6-8’ are ‘6’
ts’i:n (< *‘bone’?, cf. Tlingit 1-3 -dooshu), ‘7’ ‘2nd ts’i:n’, ‘8’ ‘ts’i:n finally’; ‘9’ is 2
unidentifiable segments; ‘10’ is perhaps ‘on top, on arm’ (cf. ‘5’ ‘forearm’).
The numerals ‘11-19’ are dAGa:Xk’a:d plus the digit numerals ‘1-9’. The dAGA:X
is to be analyzed dAGa:-X, where -X is probably the postposition or postposition-final
‘non-punctual contact, movement within o’, instead of o-q’ ‘on o’ as in ‘10’. The -k’a:d is
not otherwise attested as such, but may be conceivably related either to k’a:-d- ‘absent,
gone’, or perhaps more likely, to the -k’- in the abstract numerals dAX-k’- ‘how many?’
q.v. below, with -a:- augment and -d postposition final. The -k’a:d in any case is here
treated as a postposition, ‘o plus N’. Thus ‘11’ is dAGa:Xk’a:d LinhGih, ‘19’
dAGa:Xk’a:d guts’de:. The digits in all higher numerals, ‘21-29’, ‘31-39’ etc., are also
composed of ‘1-9’ following ‘20’, ‘30’ etc. subordinated as o of o-k’a:d, thus
tle:qa:(g)k’a:d LinhGih ‘21’, t’uhLga’dA’X dAGA:Xk’a:d LinhGih ‘31’, etc.
The numeral ‘20’ tle:qa:g is a loan from Tlingit tle:qa: (‘1-man’, i.e. ‘(all digits of)
one man’). The final -g, of unclear origin, is optional before -k’a:d, so ‘21’ tle:qa:gk’a:d
LinhGih or tle:qa:k’a:d LinhGih. This Tlingit loan for ‘20’ is the only vigesimal trait in
the Eyak numeral system. The plausible alternative to that, and presumable pre-loan
form, as regular to the Eyak decimal system, *?la’da’X dAGa:q’ (‘2 x 10’), was not
tested, but is certainly not to be found in any of the documentation of Eyak.
The numerals ‘30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90’ are formed with the decimal numeral
subordinated as o of o-da’X ‘o times’, followed by dAGA:q’, or by dAGa:Xk’a:d itself
followed by digital numeral ‘1-9’. Thus ‘30’ is t’uhLga’da’X dAGa:q’ (‘3 x 10’), ‘40’
qAlahqa’ga’da’X dAGa:q’, ‘50’ ch’a:’nda’X dAGa:q’, ‘60’ ts’i:nda’X dAGa:q’, etc., and
‘31’ is t’uhLga’da’X dAGa:Xk’a:d LinhGih, i.e. ‘(3 x 10) + 1’, ‘99’ presumably
guts’de:da’X dAGa:Xk’a:d guts’de: ‘(9 x 10) + 9’.
That may well have been the limit of traditional counting, if not in actual practice
already beyond it. Attempts to elicit ‘100’ resulted in dAGa:q’da’X dAGa:q’ (’10 x 10’)
from Lena, perhaps the best, but also wAX[k’?]da’X dAGa:q’ ‘that many times 10’,
holding up all her fingers; and from Marie la’dih ch’a:n’da’X dAGa:q’ ‘2nd 50’, not
la’da’X ch’a:n’da’X dAGa:q’ ‘2 x (5 x10)’. For ‘1000’ we have only modern tAwsAn
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
2
from English, plus 2 failed attempts to elicit ‘1000’ by Russians, along with 4 failed
attempts byRussians to elicit ‘100’.
For details of the history of eliciting numerals (including ‘100, 1000’), their
phonology, and a developing vigesimal system in the terminal stages of Eyak at Yakutat,
see the final substection here on “Older sources.”
Finally, also belonging morphologically to the numeral system, there are the
interrogative and demonstrative abstract numerals dAXk’i-d ‘how many?’, (’)wAXk’ih
‘that many’, (’)lAXk’ih ‘this many’, certainly analyzable dA-X-k’-ih -d, (’)wA-X-k’-ih,
(’)lA-X-k’-ih. For these, see further under Interrogatives for dAXk’i-d, and
Demonstratives for (’)wAXk’ih and (’)lAXk’ih.
Morphology of non-abstract counting
As noted, the numerals ‘1, 2, 5’ LinhG-ih, la’d-ih, ch’a:n’-ih, and the abstract
numerals, have suffixed -ih in abstract counting ,counting unclassified nouns, or counting
human singular. That-ih is not suffixed to numerals subordinated to postpositions used
specifically with numerals, e.g. o-da’X ‘times o’, or counting plural humans, which
requires enclitic -nu:, or counting classified nouns, which requires a class-marked
numerical particle or postposition -a:.
Thus LihnGda’X ‘once’, la’dAX ‘twice’ (-d-d- > -d-), t’uhLga’da’X ‘thrice’
qAlahqa’da’X ‘4 times, ch’a:n’dAX ‘5 times’, dAXk’da’X-d ‘how many times?’, etc., as
in the decimal numerals; also of course in sentences: la’da’X ’u’siLtahL ‘I turned two
pages of it (twice turned part of it)’’, la’da’X ’iqe’xL’e’dz ‘I’ll take two steps (step
twice)’. Counting humans: LinhGih Lila:’ ‘1 man’, but la’dnu: Lila:’(GAyu:) ‘2 men’,
t’uhLga’nu: ‘3 persons’, ch’a:n’nu: ‘5 persons’, ts’i:nnu: ‘6 persons’ (evidently retaining
the nasalization); ?dAGa:Xk’a:d LinhGih Lila:’(GAyu:) ‘21 men’ or perhaps better …
?LinhGnu:, not tested, but cf. LinhGnu:-lAya’ ‘1 pair’ below.
In counting classified nouns the numerals lack the -ih, and are followed by the
particle or postposition (o)-a: preceded by the class mark. This morpheme is probably
best classed as phonologically enclitic, as that, taking the form (’)a:na: with l- classmarker, can be attached to the numeral without ’, so that it will be written attached to the
numeral, without space. Very possibly the morpheme may be identified with the
postposition o-a: ‘of o’, which is otherwise not attested with class-marks prefixed to it.
Thus e.g. LinhGlAXa: might in fact be interpreted as a postpositional phrase ‘one of the
berry-like class’. The phonology is that class-marks ending with (-)CA-, where C is
obstruent, with the particle or postposition become -Ca:, thus d-class -da:, Xd-class XAda:, lX-class -lAXa:, etc.; gu- class becomes -guka:, not *-ga: (< *-gwa):, source of k- unexplained, though cf. -gu-ka’ ‘tail’. Thus e.g. la’dda: yahd ‘2 houses’, LihnGlAXa:
la’mahd ‘1 berry’, dAXk’lAXa: shuglAXa’lAwchi:d ’iXa’ ‘how ever many big
strawberries do you have?!’, ch’a:n’XAda: gah ‘5 days’; t’uhLga’guka: le:L ‘3 hairs’.
Where the last element of the class-mark is l-, the result is -:na:, i.e. -ti:na: for -ti:l-, qi:na: for qi:l-. For l- class itself, the result is -(’)a:na:, thus la’d(’)a:na: ch’iyahd ‘2 hats’,
presumably dAXk’(’)a:na: ch’iyahdd or dAXk’(’)a:na:d ch’iyahd ‘how many hats?’,
LinhGti:na: tsa’k’ ‘1 mitten’, LinhGqi:na: k’uXehL ‘1 rope’. Combining with classmarks ending in -dl-, itself from -d-l-, i.e. (-)dla:-, the particle or postposition becomes dla:na:, e.g. LinhGdla:na: tsa: ‘1 stone’.
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
3
The class-mark particle or postposition is absent in the construction N-nu:-lA-ya’ ‘N
pair(s) of’, e.g. LinhGnu:lAya’ tsa’k’ ‘1 pair of mittens’, la’dnu:lAya’ tsa’k’ ‘2 pairs of
mittens’.
Numerals subordinated to the adverbializer -dah and to certain other postpositions are
also attested. With -dah adverbializer: la’dah (-d-d- > -d-) ‘in two ways, (speak) in two
languages’, t’uhLga’dah ‘three ways’; LinhGdah ‘1 way’ is special in usually meaning
‘motionless, still’, LinhGdah ’iLt’ux ‘hold it still!’. With postpositions, in addition to odA’X ‘o times’ above, there are examples with o-da:- and various postposition-finals:
LinhGda:d ‘(at rest in, nominalization of) 1 place’, LinhGda:ch’ ‘to 1 place’,
t’uhLga’da:d ‘3 places’, t’uhLga’da:X ’Aw sALtsAXLinh ‘he cut it in 3 pieces’;
XAwa:yu: la’da:X GA’a’ch’L ‘dogs are going along 2 at a time’, t’uhLga’nu:da:X
GA’a’ch’L ‘they’re going along in threes’ (Marie 9/19/98). However, some of these
uses vary from or conflict with responses from Marie’s sister Sophie, 6/23/87:
t’uhLga’da:X da’mahdg ’u’lixiLgah ‘I know 3 ways it can be cooked’, t’uhLga’da’X
’Aw yAX sALtsAXLinh ‘he cut it apart into 3’, and, as above, t’uhLga’da’X q’unh wAX
sAliL ‘he did it 3 times’. Sophie could think of no way to say ‘1/3’ or ‘2/3’, but for ‘1/2’
there is the well attested ya:’a:g, q.v. under ’a:g, and also the well attested -tsin’-da’, ‘1/2
or less’, q.v. under -tsin’.
Syntax, ordinals
From the above, e.g. occurring as o of postpositions, it is clear that numerals and
numeral phrases are a type of noun and noun phrases, more than are adjectives, especially
in that the dependent use of adjectives is not applicable to numerals. Therefore, numerals
are readily found not only as o of postpositions in sentences, as shown above, but also as
S, O, or C thereof, even without overt nouns: e.g. as S in la’dnu: ’u:d sALtehL ‘2 persons
are lying there (comatose or dead)’, or as O in ch’id la’dih sich’ ’aLa’ ‘give me just
(exactly/at least) 2!’, LinhGlAXa: sich’ lAXA’a’ ‘give me one (berry)!’, ’al la’dih ’uwa:
’ich’ qu’xLah ‘I’ll give you these 2 of them’. Numerals are C e.g. in la’dnu: da’sALXa’L
‘she had two children, she had twins’, and (Sophie 6/23/87) t’uhLga’ yiLeh ‘it’s (in) 3
(pieces)’. Numerals are also of course routinely found as attribute to overt nouns in noun
phrases of any function in a sentence: la’da:na: ch’iyahd sich’ di:’ahL ‘I have two extra
hats’, and as attribute also to possessed nouns, here in phrase as S in a non-verbal
sentence: la’dih ’uXu:nLAyah ’uwa: k’a:dih ‘2 (of) his teeth are missing/gone’.
The closest we find to an ordinal is a numeral used as attribute, here to ya: ‘thing’:
’Aw t’uhLga’ ya: ’u:da’ da: sAqehL ‘the third (one/day) we arrived there (by boat), with
’Aw t’uhLga’ ya: ‘the 3 thing’ used adverbially. This construction clearly differs from ‘3
(days)’ t’uhLga’XAda: (gah) in lacking the XAda: (particle or postposition and Xdclass-marker for ‘day’), likewise ’Al q’Adits’i:n ya: gah ‘this eighth day’. Though ordinal
numerals were evidently not further investigated, ‘the third one (human)’ would
accordingly be ’anh t’uhLga’ yi:nhinh, and ‘the third man’ would be ’anh t’uhLga’
yi:nhinh Lila:’, perhaps also simply ’anh t’uhLga’ Lila:’, probably either. Note also
la’dits’i:n for ‘7’, which can be neither ‘2 [x] 6’ nor ‘2 [+] 6’, but only ‘2nd 6’. Also,
especially in the earlier numeral lists (see final subsection here), there are a number of
forms which imply the further ordinal use of numerals.
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
4
Measurement
Numerals are fairly well attested in measurements of time and distance. It is not clear
that these ever constituted a system as such, and active investigation of that was perhaps
not exhaustive. The dictionary entries for numerals include examples of all such usages,
merely summarized here.
Traditionally, time was certainly measured in terms of days, months and years. Lesser
measurements of time include ‘minutes’ only as a loan from English, minidz. Time of
day was established: k’uXa’tl’ ‘hour o’clock’; see the verb stem -Xa’tl’ ‘strike’, here
evidently of a clock striking, and derivatives. In addition to gah ‘day’ itself, especially the
verb theme y-L-qa ‘day dawns’ and derivatives are often used with numerals to measure
the passage of days, e.g. t’uhLga’ yAsALqahL ‘3 days passed’, t’uhLga’ ’uch’ahd
yAsaLqahL ‘3 days ago, 3 days have passed since it’. Further, t’uhLga’ yAsAlqahL also
means ‘Wednesday’, ch’a:n’ih yAsAlqahL Friday, etc., the numerals ‘1-5’ thus serving to
name the weekdays. ‘Week’ is sAndiqa’d ‘between Sundays’ (nomnalized with-d). Given
that loan from English, it is possible that the numerical weekday-names do not come
from or are not patterned after the Russian, which are themselves partly numerical.
‘Moon, month’ qAXah, l-class, is unanalyzable, q.v. in the dictionary under -Xah; this of
course serves also in measuring the passage of time. For ‘year’ see especially the verb
theme Gl-’ya, where Gl- is thematic for ‘passage of time’, with preverbal leh, which itself
should therefore be glossed ‘(in) year(s)’; seasons (xah ‘summer’ and XAla:g ‘winter’)
are not used in counting years.
Less information remains about numerical measurement of distance, for which only
two or three units are attested. One is k’uk’ahsh ‘foot’ (both anatomical and unit of
measurement), as in English, and perhaps calqued from English, with k’u- indefinite
possessive prefix as o of o-ga’ ‘like o’, so taking comparative dimensional verb, e.g.
la’dih k’uk’ahshga’ ’i:L’a’ ‘it’s 2 feet long’ (‘it extends like/equal to 2 feet’). The other
and most certain unit is yahd, glossed by Lena as ‘yard’, very possibly under the
influence of the resemblance to the English, but which is purely coincidental and does not
fit phonologically as a loan (which would be *ya:d). Cf. also, crucially, the basic
directive verb theme with the same stem O-’-yahd ‘measure O’, the existence of which
may imply more of a measurement system than was remembered. Lastly, note the loan
sha:she:n ‘cord of wood’, from Russian sazhen, unit of linear measure, ca. 7 feet, Eyak
being the only Alaskan language in which this loan has been noted, though apparently it
does not serve as a unit of linear measure.
Arithmetic
No Eyak arithmetical discourse was attested or elicited, but such could certainly have
existed or could be developed with the numerals, including the abstract dAXk’-d etc., and
existing resources such as o-ga’ ‘like o’, o-lAX ‘more than o’, o-’u’X ‘less/fewer than o’,
and o-da’X ‘times o’, allowing for the four basic processes.
Older sources
There is of course significant history of the documentation of Eyak numerals, of some
interest here. The first list of Eyak numerals is Rezanov Yakutat 1805, showing ‘1-12, 20,
30, 40, 50’; left blank are ‘60, 70’, etc., ‘100, 200’ etc., ‘1000’. Next is Anonymous
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
5
Yakutat ca. 1810, with ‘1-11, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100’; left blank are ‘12-19, 21-29’ etc., ‘60,
70’ etc., ‘200’ etc.. Then there is “Baranov” Yakutat 1812, with ‘1-10, 20, 30, 40, 50,
100, 1000’, heavily influenced by the 1810 list, and the only list made at any time with
access to or consideration of any previous list. Wrangell is the first at Copper River, ca.
1835, with ‘1-10, 20, 30, 100’. Next there is Furuhjelm, Cordova area, 1862, with ‘1-12,
20, 30, 100, 1000’. After the Russian period, and a gap of 71 years, the first source is de
Laguna 1933, with Galushia Nelson of Alaganik-Cordova, ‘1-10’ only. Next was
Harrington 1940, working with George Johnson of Bering River village, ‘1-10’, decimals
‘20-90, 100’, also counting people, ‘1-10’. Next was Li 1952, also working with George
Johnson, ‘1-23’, decimals ‘30-90, 100’, and with Anna Nelson Harry of Cordova, ‘1-11,
20, 21, 30, 100’. Last was Austerlitz 1961, who elicited numerals from Lena Nacktan or
Marie Smith, ‘1-11, 20, 21, 30, 50, 100, 200, 1000’. This is a total of 9 sources before
Krauss, 5 Russian and 4 post-Russian, including Li from 2 speakers.
First, regarding the system itself: all sources, as far as they go, agree on everything in
the numerals ‘1-20’. All show the same basic ‘1-10’, dAGa:Xk’a:d N for ‘11-12’, and
tle:qa:g for ‘20’.
However, for ‘30, 40, 50’, all agree except, egregiously, Anonymous Yakutat ca.
1810 and “Baranov” Yakutat 1812, which is highly influenced by Anonymous 1810. For
‘20’ 1810 has tliekakv”, but ‘30’ is tlekak” kvatakaan”, i.e. tle:qa:gk’wa:[d] dAGa:q’
(‘20 + 10’, where -k- is easily misread for -n- in copying), ‘40’ is latit” tlekak”
kvatakaak” , i.e. la’dih tle:qa:gk’wa dAGa:q’ ‘(2nd 20) + 10’, so ‘50’ rather than ‘40’,
and ‘50’ is lati-tlekva aak”va, i.e. la’dih tle:qwa:(g)k’wa-, starting to say the same as was
said for ‘40’ which was in fact ‘50’, confused and/or garbled. “Baranov” Yakutat 1812
for the same 4 decimals has ‘20’ tliekakv” tle:qa:gw, ‘30’ tlkan” kvatakaak”, i.e.
tle:qa:gk’wa:[d] dAga:q’ as in 1810, then ‘40’ lati tliekak” kva, i.e. the same as was
erroneously said in 1810 for ‘50’ now corrected to ‘40’ (in fact perhaps more exactly to
be read as a very carefully pronounced la’dih tle:qa:gw, also minus the extra and
etymologically incorrect labialzation -qw-, so showing some independence); and now
‘50’ is lati-tliekvaak”va-takaak” la’dih tle:qwa:gk’wa:[d] dAGa:q’ ‘(2nd 20) + 10’, fully
correcting the switch in the1810 numerals (though now with the extra labialization, -qw-,
here rather than in the vigesimal meaning ‘40’).
The system in Yakutat Eyak had indeed become vigesimal at this late or terminal
stage of Eyak there. In Rezanov’s Yakutat Eyak of 1805, we can see the system was still
clearly decimal there, even with the Tlingit loan for ’20’, tliakak” tle:qa:g, then ‘30’
toal’kdaaxtakak” t’uhLg[wa’]da’X dAGa:q’ (‘3 x 10’) ‘40’ kliakak[--]axtakak”, with 2
illegible letters, qAlahqa’g[wa’d]a’X dAGa:q’ (4 x 10’), and ‘50’ chaan”axtakak”
ch’a:n’[d]a’X dAGa:q’ (‘5 x 10’), just as it remained at Cordova. Thus the development
of a vigesimal system was confined to late Yakutat Eyak. This must almost certainly have
been under the influence of Tlingit vigesimal system of the time.Widely at least at that
period, ’30’ was ‘1- man’ + ‘10’, ‘40’ was ‘2-man’, ‘50’ was ‘2-man + 10’, etc., and
‘100’ was ‘5-man’. Some or most Tlingit dialects, especially by the 20th century, have a
decimal system like Eyak, but very probably Yakutat in 1810 must have been vigesimal,
to provide the model for that innovation in the Yakutat Eyak numeral system at ithe latest
stage of its existence.
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
6
For ‘100’ in Eyak we have 4 Russian sources: 1810 tkakva tsyi, which can only be
read dAGa:Xk’wa:d ts’i:n ‘16’, and 1812 has the same, still more poorly transcribed,
takva-tsyi. Wrangell ca. 1835 has takakx” tlekak” dAGa:q’ tle:qa:g ‘10th 20’, hardly
correct, except perhaps for ‘200’. Furuhjelm 1862 is still farther off, with vetzte takhakh,
to be read [g]wAts’de: dAGa:q’ ‘9th 10’, cf. kvatzte ‘9’; he also has khatatzi q’Adits’i:n
‘8’ for ‘20’, and khatatzi takakh ‘8th 10’ for ‘30’, which are the 2 numerals immediately
preceding ‘100’, so that something like ‘90’ for ‘100’ here is hardly surprising. From the
post-Russian sources, both Harrington and Li with George Johnson have dAGa:q’da’X
dAGa:q’ ’10 x 10’, which also Krauss has with Lena. Aside from that,Li also has
LinhGih hAndrEt with Anna, and Austerlitz LinGih hAndEt for 100’ and la’dih hAndEt
for ‘200’ with Lena or Marie. Thus, all 4 Russian attempts at eliciting ‘100’ were failures,
and except for a plausible dAGa:q’da’X dAGa:q’ from George Johnson twice and
sometimes also from Lena, there seems to have been no consistent Eyak not borrowed
from English for ‘100’. The “plausible” ‘10 x 10’ or ‘ten-ty’ from both George Johnson
and Lena Nacktan could have been traditional, and/or of course it could well be a mere
logical or automatic extension of the system itself.
For ‘1000’, beside the modern tAwsAn from English, we have only “Baranov”
Yakutat 1812 tlinak”a tykaak” or tlikak”a tykaak” tle:qa: k’a:[d] dAGa:q’ ’20 + 10’ (cf.
same source tlkak”kvatakaan” ‘30’ tle:qa:gk’wa:d dAGa:q’), and Furuhujelm Cordova
1862 Khanakvaka qAnahqwa’ga’ for qanahqa’gwa’, modern qAlahqa’g(w)a’ ‘4’.
Finally, some phonological details of the numerals in the older sources: first, ts’i:n ‘6’
in Rezanov is consistently tsun”, implying ts’u:n instead of ts’i:n. Subsequent sources
have the Russian vowel y, or i or e, interpretable as i:. Yakutat 1810 and 1812 sometimes
have tsynn”, where the doubling of the nasal is very unlikely to be a transcription of
consonantal or syllabic -n, but much more probably the reverse, an awkward attempt to
show nasalization as opposed to normal Russian final nasal. Harrington has ch’a:’nu: and
sometimes ts’i:nu: for ‘5 persons’, ‘6 persons’, where Krauss, perhaps not careful, has
ch’a:n’nu: ts’i:nnu:, with persistence of nasalization.
One other type of phonological detail in which especially the Russian transcriptions
differ from the modern ones is in labialization of velars, in several particulars. First, the
postposition o-k’a:d ‘o plus’ is written labialized o-k’wa:d in Rezanov 1805, and 1810,
1812, so in all 3 Yakutat lists; it is not attested in the later Russian lists. Second, for ‘20’
tle:qa:g, we have tle:qa:gw with labialized final, in Yakutat 1810 and 1812, but not in
Rezanov 1805, or in Wrangell ca. 1835. Third, the -ga’ or -gwa’ in ‘3’ and ‘4’ is usually
labialized (-kva, -koa, - kua), as may be expected, given that o-ga’ is o-gwa’ even in
modern Eyak some of the time. Finally, and of special interest, we already saw
etymologically incorrect labialization -qw- of -q- in the Yakutat vigesimals for ‘40’ and
‘50’ above. We also see in ‘4’ qAlahqa’g(w)a’ a transcription where there is metathesis
of labialization, kalakvaka in both 1810 and 1812, implying -qwa’-ga’, instead of the
expected -qa’-gwa’. In fact we have that not only in Yakutat 1810 , 1812, but also in
Furuhjelm’s 1862 Cordova ‘1000’ khanakvaka (see above), though not in his ‘4’,
khaliakhakva. Such metathesis very probably requires bilingualism with Tlingit, as
labialized uvulars exist only in Tlingit, having long been lost in Eyak. That bilingualism
was certainly obvious for Yakutat in 1810, but is not at all surprising for the Cordova
area in 1862 either
Krauss, Eyak Numerals, rev. 17 Nov 2009
7