Chapter VI, in which Mr. McLennan’s objections are considered.

If the recognized relationships in the Malayan system are now tested by this form of marriage, it will be found that they rest upon the intermarriage of own and collateral brothers and sisters in a group.

It should be remembered that the relationships which grow out of the family organization are of two kinds: those of blood determined by descents, and those of affinity determined by marriage. Since in the consanguine family there are two distinct groups of persons, one of fathers and one of mothers, the affiliation of the children to both groups would be so strong that the distinction between relationships by blood and by affinity would not be recognized in the system in every case.

I. All the children of my several brothers, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: Speaking as a Hawaiian, all the wives of my several brothers are my wives as well as theirs. As it would be impossible for me to distinguish my own children from those of my brothers, if I call any one my child, I must call them all my children. One is as likely to be mine as another.

II. All the grandchildren of my several brothers are my grandchildren.

Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.

III. With myself a female the foregoing relationships are the same.

This is purely a question of relationship by marriage. My several brothers being my husbands, their children by other wives would be my step-children, which relationship being unrecognized, they naturally fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would pass without the system. Among ourselves a step-mother is called mother, and a step-son a son.

IV. All the children of my several sisters, own and collateral, myself a male, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: All my sisters are my wives, as well as the wives of my several brothers.

V. All the grandchildren of my several sisters are my grandchildren.

Reason: They are the children of my sons and daughters.

VI. All the children of my several sisters, myself a female, are my sons and daughters.

Reason: The husbands of my sisters are my husbands as well as theirs. This difference, however, exists: I can distinguish my own children from those of my sisters, to the latter of whom I am a step-mother. But since this relationship is not discriminated, they fall into the category of my sons and daughters. Otherwise they would fall without the system.

VII. All the children of several own brothers are brothers and sisters to each other.

Reason: These brothers are the husbands of all the mothers of these children. The children can distinguish their own mothers, but not their fathers, wherefore, as to the former, a part are own brothers and sisters, and step-brothers and step-sisters to the remainder; but as to the latter, they are probable brothers and sisters. For these reasons they naturally fall into this category.

VIII. The children of these brothers and sisters are also brothers and sisters to each other; the children of the latter are brothers and sisters again, and this relationship continues downward among their descendants indefinitely. It is precisely the same with the children and descendants of several own sisters, and of several brothers and sisters. An infinite series is thus created, which is a fundamental part of the system. To account for this series it must be further assumed that the marriage relation extended wherever the relationship of brother and sister was recognized to exist; each brother having as many wives as he had sisters, own or collateral, and each sister having as many husbands as she had brothers, own or collateral. Marriage and the family seem to form in the grade or category, and to be coextensive with it. Such apparently was the beginning of that stupendous conjugal system which has before been a number of times adverted to.

IX. All the brothers of my father are my fathers; and all the sisters of my mother are my mothers.

Reasons, as in I, III, and VI.

X. All the brothers of my mother are my fathers.

Reason: They are my mother’s husbands.

XI. All the sisters of my mother are my mothers.

Reasons, as in VI.

XII. All the children of my collateral brothers and sisters are, without distinction, my sons and daughters.

Reasons, as in I, III, IV, VI.

XIII. All the children of the latter are my grandchildren.

Reasons, as in II.

XIV. All the brothers and sisters of my grandfather and grandmother, on the father’s side and on the mother’s side, are my grandfathers and grandmothers.

Reason: They are the fathers and mothers of my father and mother.

Every relationship recognized under the system is thus explained from the nature of the consanguine family, founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and sisters, own and collateral, in a group. Relationships on the father’s side are followed as near as the parentage of children could be known, probable fathers being treated as actual fathers. Relationships on the mother’s side are determined by the principle of affinity, step-children being regarded as actual children.

Turning next to the marriage relationships, confirmatory results are obtained, as the following table will show:

TONGAN. HAWAIIAN.

My Brother’s Wife, Male speaking. Unoho, My Wife. Waheena, My Wife.

” Wife’s Sister, ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” Wife.

” Husband’s Brother, Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kane, ” Husband.

” Father’s Brother’s} Male ” Unoho, ” Wife. Waheena, ” Wife. Son’s Wife }

” Mother’s Sister’s } ” ” Unoho, ” ” Waheena, ” ” Son’s Wife }

” Father’s Brother’s} Female ” Unoho, ” Husband. Kaikoeka, ” Bro.-in-law. Daughter’s Husb.}

” Mother’s Sister’s } ” ” Unoho, ” ” Kaikoeka, ” ” Daughter’s Husb.}

Wherever the relationship of wife is found in the collateral line, that of husband must be recognized in the lineal, and conversely.[455] When this system of consanguinity and affinity first came into use the relationships, which are still preserved, could have been none other than those which actually existed, whatever may have afterwards occurred in marriage usages.

From the evidence embodied in this system of consanguinity the deduction is made that the consanguine family, as defined, existed among the ancestors of the Polynesian tribes when the system was formed. Such a form of the family is necessary to render an interpretation of the system possible. Moreover, it furnishes an interpretation of every relationship with reasonable exactness.

The following observation of Mr. Oscar Peschel is deserving of attention: “That at any time and in any place the children of the same mother have propagated themselves sexually, for any long period, has been rendered especially incredible, since it has been established that even in the case of organisms devoid of blood, such as the plants, reciprocal fertilization of the descendants of the same parents is to a great extent impossible.”[456] It must be remembered that the consanguine group united in the marriage relation was not restricted to own brothers and sisters; but it included collateral brothers and sisters as well. The larger the group recognizing the marriage relation, the less the evil of close interbreeding.

From general considerations the ancient existence of such a family was probable. The natural and necessary relations of the consanguine family to the punaluan, of the punaluan to the syndyasmian, and of the syndyasmian to the monogamian, each presupposing its predecessor, lead directly to this conclusion. They stand to each other in a logical sequence, and together stretch across several ethnical periods from savagery to civilization.

In like manner the three great systems of consanguinity, which are connected with the three radical forms of the family, stand to each other in a similarly connected series, running parallel with the former, and indicating not less plainly a similar line of human progress from savagery to civilization. There are reasons for concluding that the remote ancestors of the Aryan, Semitic, and Uralian families possessed a system identical with the Malayan when in the savage state, which was finally modified into the Turanian after the establishment of the gentile organization, and then overthrown when the monogamian family appeared, introducing the Aryan system of consanguinity.

Notwithstanding the high character of the evidence given, there is still other evidence of the ancient existence of the consanguine family among the Hawaiians which should not be overlooked.

Its antecedent existence is rendered probable by the condition of society in the Sandwich Islands when it first became thoroughly known. At the time the American missions were established upon these Islands (1820), a state of society was found which appalled the missionaries. The relations of the sexes and their marriage customs excited their chief astonishment. They were suddenly introduced to a phase of ancient society where the monogamian family was unknown, where the syndyasmian family was unknown; but in the place of these, and without understanding the organism, they found the punaluan family, with own brothers and sisters not entirely excluded, in which the males were living in polygyny, and the females in polyandry. It seemed to them that they had discovered the lowest level of human degradation, not to say of depravity. But the innocent Hawaiians, who had not been able to advance themselves out of savagery, were living, no doubt respectably and modestly for savages, under customs and usages which to them had the force of laws. It is probable that they were living as virtuously in their faithful observance, as these excellent missionaries were in the performance of their own. The shock the latter experienced from their discoveries expresses the profoundness of the expanse which separates civilized from savage man. The high moral sense and refined sensibilities, which had been a growth of the ages, were brought face to face with the feeble moral sense and the coarse sensibilities of a savage man of all these periods ago. As a contrast it was total and complete. The Rev. Hiram Bingham, one of these veteran missionaries, has given us an excellent history of the Sandwich Islands, founded upon original investigations, in which he pictures the people as practicing the sum of human abominations. “Polygamy, implying plurality of husbands and wives,” he observes, “fornication, adultery, incest, infant murder, desertion of husband and wives, parents and children; sorcery, covetousness, and oppression extensively prevailed, and seem hardly to have been forbidden by their religion.”[457] Punaluan marriage and the punaluan family dispose of the principal charges in this grave indictment, and leave the Hawaiians a chance at a moral character. The existence of morality, even among savages, must be recognized, although low in type; for there never could have been a time in human experience when the principle of morality did not exist. Wakea, the eponymous ancestor of the Hawaiians, according to Mr. Bingham, is said to have married his eldest daughter. In the time of these missionaries brothers and sisters married without reproach. “The union of brother and sister in the highest ranks,” he further remarks, “became fashionable, and continued until the revealed will of God was made known to them.”[458] It is not singular that the intermarriage of brothers and sisters should have survived from the consanguine family into the punaluan in some cases, in the Sandwich Islands, because the people had not attained to the gentile organization, and because the punaluan family was a growth out of the consanguine not yet entirely consummated. Although the family was substantially punaluan, the system of consanguinity remained unchanged, as it came in with the consanguine family, with the exception of certain marriage relationships.

It is not probable that the actual family, among the Hawaiians, was as large as the group united in the marriage relation. Necessity would compel its subdivision into smaller groups for the procurement of subsistence, and for mutual protection; but each smaller family would be a miniature of the group. It is not improbable that individuals passed at pleasure from one of these subdivisions into another in the punaluan as well as consanguine family, giving rise to that apparent desertion by husbands and wives of each other, and by parents of their children, mentioned by Mr. Bingham. Communism in living must, of necessity, have prevailed both in the consanguine and in the punaluan family, because it was a requirement of their condition. It still prevails generally among savage and barbarous tribes.

A brief reference should be made to the “Nine Grades of Relations of the Chinese.” An ancient Chinese author remarks as follows: “All men born into the world have nine ranks of relations. My own generation is one grade, my father’s is one, that of my grandfather’s is one, that of my grandfather’s father is one, and that of my grandfather’s grandfather is one; thus, above me are four grades: My son’s generation is one, that of my grandson’s is one, that of my grandson’s son is one, and that of my grandson’s grandson is one; thus, below me are four grades; including myself in the estimate, there are, in all nine grades. These are brethren, and although each grade belongs to a different house or family, yet they are all my relations, and these are the nine grades of relations.”

“The degrees of kindred in a family are like the streamlets of a fountain, or the branches of a tree; although the streams differ in being more or less remote, and the branches in being more or less near, yet there is but one trunk and one fountain head.”[459]

The Hawaiian system of consanguinity realizes the nine grades of relations (conceiving them reduced to five by striking off the two upper and the two lower members) more perfectly than that of the Chinese at the present time.[460] While the latter has changed through the introduction of Turanian elements, and still more through special additions to distinguish the several collateral lines, the former has held, pure and simple, to the primary grades which presumptively were all the Chinese possessed originally. It is evident that consanguinei, in the Chinese as in the Hawaiian, are generalized into categories by generations; all collaterals of the same grade being brothers and sisters to each other. Moreover, marriage and the family are conceived as forming within the grade, and confined, so far as husbands and wives are concerned, within its limits. As explained by the Hawaiian categories it is perfectly intelligible. At the same time it indicates an anterior condition among the remote ancestors of the Chinese, of which this fragment preserves a knowledge, precisely analogous to that reflected by the Hawaiian. In other words, it indicated the presence of the punaluan family when these grades were formed, of which the consanguine was a necessary predecessor.

In the “Timæus” of Plato there is a suggestive recognition of the same five primary grades of relations. All consanguinei in the Ideal Republic were to fall into five categories, in which the women were to be in common as wives, and the children in common as to parents. “But how about the procreation of children?” Socrates says to Timæus. “This, perhaps, you easily remember, on account of the novelty of the proposal; for we ordered that marriage unions and children should be in common to all persons whatsoever, special care being taken also that no one should be able to distinguish his own children individually, but all consider all their kindred; regarding those of an equal age, and in the prime of life, as their brothers and sisters, those prior to them, and yet further back as their parents and grandsires, and those below them, as their children and grandchildren.”[461] Plato undoubtedly was familiar with Hellenic and Pelasgian traditions not known to us, which reached far back into the period of barbarism, and revealed traces of a still earlier condition of the Grecian tribes. His ideal family may have been derived from these delineations, a supposition far more probable than that it was a philosophical deduction. It will be noticed that his five grades of relations are precisely the same as the Hawaiian; that the family was to form in each grade where the relationship was that of brothers and sisters; and that husbands and wives were to be in common in the group.

Finally, it will be perceived that the state of society indicated by the consanguine family points with logical directness to an anterior condition of promiscuous intercourse. There seems to be no escape from this conclusion, although questioned by so eminent a writer as Mr. Darwin.[462] It is not probable that promiscuity in the primitive period was long continued even in the horde; because the latter would break up into smaller groups for subsistence, and fall into consanguine families. The most that can safely be claimed upon this difficult question is, that the consanguine family was the first organized form of society, and that it was necessarily an improvement upon the previous unorganized state, whatever that state may have been. It found mankind at the bottom of the scale, from which, as a starting point, and the lowest known, we may take up the history of human progress, and trace it through the growth of domestic institutions, inventions, and discoveries, from savagery to civilization. By no chain of events can it be shown more conspicuously than in the growth of the idea of the family through successive forms. With the existence of the consanguine family established, of which the proofs adduced seem to be sufficient, the remaining families are easily demonstrated.

_System of Relationship of the Hawaiians and Rotumans._

_Vowel Sounds._—a, as in ale; ă, as in at; ä, as in father; ǐ, as in it; ŭ, as oo in food; kä′-na = male; wä-hee′-na = female. _ms_ = Male speaking _fs_ = Female speaking ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————————+——————————————————————————————————————————————— │ By Hon. Thomas Miller. │ By Rev. John Osborne. Description of Persons. │ Relationship in Hawaiian. Translation. │ Relationship in Translation. │ │ Rotuman. ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+—————————————————————————————————————————————————————+——————————————————————————————————————————————— 1 My great-grandfather │ kŭ-pŭ′-na My grandparent │ mä-pǐ-ga fä My grandparent, male 2 ” ” grandfather’s brother │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ” 3 ” ” ” sister │ ” ” ” │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 4 ” ” grandmother │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ” 5 ” ” grandmother’s sister │ ” ” ” │ ” ” ” ” ” 6 ” grandfather │ ” ” ” │ ” fä ” ” male 7 ” grandmother │ ” ” ” │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 8 ” father │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” father 9 ” mother │ mä-kŭ-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother 10 ” son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 11 ” daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 12 ” grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kă′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 13 ” granddaughter │ moo-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 14 ” great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 15 ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 16 ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 17 ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 18 ” older brother (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother, older 19 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-nä′-na ” ” ” │ sag′-ve-ven′-ǐ ” ” ” 20 ” ” sister (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister, ” 21 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” ” ” │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” ” ” 22 ” younger brother (_ms_) │ käi-ka-i′-na ” brother, younger │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” brother, younger 23 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-kŭ-nä′-na ” ” ” │ sag′-ve-ven′-ǐ ” ” ” 24 ” ” sister (_ms_) │ käi-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister ” 25 ” ” ” (_fs_) │ käi-ka-i′-na ” ” ” │ sa-sǐ-gǐ ” ” ” 26 ” brother’s son (_ms_) │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 27 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 28 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e-hon′-ǐ ” ” ” 29 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male 30 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 31 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 32 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 33 ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 34 ” sister’s son ” │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 35 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 36 ” ” daughter ” │ käi-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e-hon′-ǐ ” ” ” 37 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male 38 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 39 My sister’s granddaughter (_ms_) │ moo-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ mä-pǐ-ga hon′-ǐ ” ” female 40 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 41 ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 42 ” brother’s son (_fs_) │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 43 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 44 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” ” 45 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male 46 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 47 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 48 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 49 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 50 ” sister’s son ” │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 51 ” ” son’s wife ” │ hŭ-no′-nă ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 52 ” ” daughter ” │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” ” 53 ” ” daughter’s husband ” │ hŭ-no′-na ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” ” male 54 ” ” grandson ” │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 55 ” ” granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 56 ” ” great-grandson ” │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 57 ” ” great-granddaughter ” │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 58 ” father’s brother │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 59 ” ” brother’s wife │ mä-kŭ′-a wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 60 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 61 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” ” 62 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 63 ” ” ” daughter, (_older, ms_) │ käi′-ku-wä-hee′-na ” sister │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” ” 64 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” ” │ ” ” ” 65 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 66 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 67 ” ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 68 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” ” male │ le′-e fä ” ” male 69 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 70 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 71 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 72 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 73 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 74 ” father’s sister │ mä-kŭ′-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” parent, female 75 ” ” sister’s husband │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ oi-fä ” ” male 76 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 77 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ” 78 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 79 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ” 80 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ kai-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 81 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 82 My father’s sister’s son’s daughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 83 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 84 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 85 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 86 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 87 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 88 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 89 ” mother’s brother │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 90 ” ” brother’s wife │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 91 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 92 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i′-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ” 93 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 94 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ” 95 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 96 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 97 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 98 ” ” ” daughter’s son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 99 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 100 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 101 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 102 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 103 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 104 ” mother’s sister │ mä-kŭ-ă wä-hee′-na ” parent, female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” parent, female 105 ” ” sister’s husband │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ oi-fä ” ” male 106 ” ” ” son (_older, ms_) │ käi′-ku-ä-ä′-na ” brother, older │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 107 ” ” ” ” (_younger, ms_) │ käi′-ka-i-na ” ” younger │ ” ” ” 108 ” ” ” son’s wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 109 ” ” ” daughter │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister │ ” ” ” 110 ” ” ” daughter’s husband │ käi′-ko-ee′-kä ” brother-in-law │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 111 ” ” ” son’s son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 112 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 113 ” ” ” daughters son │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 114 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 115 ” ” ” great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 116 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 117 ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ ” kä′-na ” ” male │ ” fä ” ” male 118 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 119 ” father’s father’s brother │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandparent, male │ ” fä ” grandparent, male 120 ” ” ” brother’s son │ mä-kŭ′-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 121 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 122 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 123 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ( ” ) │ käi′-kŭ wä-hee′-na ” sister, elder │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 124 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 125 My father’s father’s brother’s great-granddaughter │ käi′-kee wä-hee′-na ” child, female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 126 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 127 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter│ ” wä-hee′na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 128 ” father’s father’s sister │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă wä-hee′-na ” grandparent female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” grandparent, female 129 ” ” ” sister’s son │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 130 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 131 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi′-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 132 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 133 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 134 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 135 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nä kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 136 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 137 ” mother’s mother’s brother │ kŭ-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandparent, male │ ” fä ” grandparent, male 138 ” ” ” brother’s son │ mä-kă-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 139 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 140 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older_) │ käi-kŭ-a-ä′-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 141 ” ” ” ” granddaughter ” │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 142 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 143 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e honi-ǐ ” ” female 144 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 145 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter│ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ ” hon′-ǐ ” ” female 146 ” mother’s mother’s sister │ kŭ-pŭ-nă wä-hee-na ” grandparent, male │ ” hon′-ǐ ” grandparent, male 147 ” ” ” sister’s son │ mä-kŭ-ă kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 148 ” ” ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 149 ” ” ” ” grandson (_older, ms_) │ käi′-kŭ-ă-ä-na ” brother, elder │ sä-sǐ-gǐ ” brother 150 ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ käi′-kŭ-wä-hee′-na ” sister, ” │ sag-hon′-ǐ ” sister 151 ” ” ” ” great-grandson │ käi′-kee-kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 152 ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 153 ” ” ” ” great-great-grandson │ moo-pŭ′-nă kä′-na ” grandchild, male │ mä-pǐ-ga fä ” grandchild, male 154 ” ” ” ” ” ” granddaughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ mä-pǐ-ga hon′-ǐ ” ” female 155 ” husband │ kä′-na ” husband │ ve-ven′-ǐ ” husband 156 ” wife │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hoi-e-nä, and hen ” wife 157 ” husband’s father │ mä-kŭ′-ă-hŭ-nä-ai ” father-in-law │ oi-fä ” father 158 ” ” mother │ ” ” mother-in-law │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother 159 ” wife’s father │ ” ” father-in-law │ oi-fä ” father 160 ” ” mother │ ” ” mother-in-law │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” mother 161 ” son-in-law │ hŭ-no′-nă kä′-na ” son-in-law │ le′-e fä ” child, male 162 ” daughter-in-law │ ” wä-hee′-na ” daughter-in-law │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female 163 ” brother-in-law (_husband’s brother_) │ kä′-na ” husband │ hom-fu′-e ” brother-in-law 164 ” ” ” ” (_sister’s husband, fs_) │ ” ” ” │ me-i ” ” ” ” 165 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s sister’s husband_) │ pŭ-na-lŭ-ä ” intimate companion │ 166 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s brother_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” brother-in-law │ me-i ” ” ” ” 167 ” sister-in-law (_wife’s sister_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hom-fu′-e ” sister-in-law 168 My sister-in-law (_husband’s sister_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” sister-in-law │ me-i ” ” ” ” 169 ” ” ” ” (_brother’s wife_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ hom-fu′-e ” ” ” ” 170 ” ” ” ” ( ” ” _fs_) │ käi-ko-a′-kä ” sister-in-law │ ” ” ” ” ” 171 ” ” ” ” (_husband’s brother’s wife_) │ pŭ-na-lŭ-ä ” intimate companion │ 172 ” ” ” ” (_wife’s brother’s wife_) │ wä-hee′-na ” wife │ 173 ” step-father │ mä-kŭ′-a kä′-na ” parent, male │ oi-fä ” parent, male 174 ” ” mother │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ oi-hon′-ǐ ” ” female 175 ” ” son │ käi′-kee kä′-na ” child, male │ le′-e fä ” child, male 176 ” ” daughter │ ” wä-hee′-na ” ” female │ le′-e hon′-ǐ ” ” female