OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
s. 328. In one sense the cardinal numbers form no part of a work on
etymology. They are single words, apparently simple, and, as such,
appertaining to a dictionary rather than to a grammar.
In another sense they are strictly etymological. They are the basis of the
ordinals, which are formed from them by derivation. Furthermore, some of
them either have, or are supposed to have, certain peculiarities of form
which can be accounted for only by considering them derivatives, and that
of a very peculiar kind.
s. 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the
same throughout the whole Indo-European class of languages. The English
_three_ is the Latin _tres_, the Sanskrit _tri_, &c. In the Indo-European
languages the numerals agree, even when many common terms differ.
And it is also an ethnological fact, that in a great many other groups of
languages the numerals differ, even when many of the common terms agree.
This is the case with many of the African and American dialects. Languages
alike in the common terms for common objects differ in respect to the
numerals.
What is the reason for this inconsistency in the similarity or
dissimilarity of the numerals as compared with the similarity or
dissimilarity of other words? I believe that the following distinction
leads the way to it:--
The word _two_=2, absolutely and unequivocally, and in a primary manner.
The word _pair_ also=2; but not absolutely, not unequivocally, and only in
a secondary manner. {274}
Hence the distinction between absolute terms expressive of number, and
secondary terms expressive of number.
When languages separate from a common stock before the use of certain words
is fixed as _absolute_, there is room for considerable latitude in the
choice of numerals; _e.g._, whilst with one tribe the word _pair_=_two_,
another tribe may use the word _couple_, a third _brace_, and so on. In
this case dialects that agree in other respects may differ in respect to
their numerals.
When, on the other hand, languages separate from a common stock after the
meaning of such a word as _two_ has been fixed absolutely, there is no room
for latitude; and the numerals agree where the remainder of the language
differs.
1. _One_=_unus_, Latin; [Greek: heis] ([Greek: hen]), Greek.
2. _Two_=_duo_, [Greek: duo].
3. _Three_=_tres_, [Greek: treis].
4. _Four_=_quatuor_, [Greek: tettara]. This is apparently problematical.
Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:--
[alpha]. _Fidvor_, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with _quatuor_.
[beta]. [Greek: Pisures], Aeolic. Illustrates the change between [tau]- and
[pi]- (allied to _f-_), within the pale of the classical languages.
5. _Five_=_quinque_, [Greek: pente]. Verified by the following forms:--
[alpha]. [Greek: Pempe], Aeolic Greek.
[beta]. _Pump_, Welsh. These account for the change from the _n_ + _t_ in
[Greek: pente] to _m_ + _p_.
[gamma]. _Fimf_, Moeso-Gothic; _fuenf_, Modern High German.
[delta]. _Fem_, Norse.
The change from the [pi]- of [Greek: pente] to the _qu-_ of _quinque_ is
the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between _p_ and
_k_: [Greek: hippos], [Greek: hikkos], _equus_.
6. _Six_=[Greek: hex], _sex_.
7. _Seven_=[Greek: hepta], _septem_.
This form is difficult. The Moeso-Gothic form is _sibun_, without a _-t-_;
the Norse, _syv_, without either _-t-_ or _-n_ (=_-m_). A doubtful
explanation of the form _seven_, &c., will be found in the following
chapter. {275}
8. _Eight_=[Greek: okto], _octo_.
9. _Nine_=[Greek: ennea], _novem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _nigun_, the
Icelandic _niu_. In the Latin _novem_ the _v_=the _g_ of _nigun_. In the
English and Greek it is wanting. The explanation of the _-n_ and _-m_ will
be found in the following chapter.
10. _Ten_=[Greek: deka], _decem_. The Moeso-Gothic form is _tihun_; wherein
the _h_=the _c_ of _decem_ and the [kappa] of [Greek: deka]. The Icelandic
form is _tiu_, and, like [Greek: deka], is without the _-n_ (or _-m_). The
hypothesis as to the _-m_ or _-n_ will be given in the next chapter.
11. _Eleven._ By no means the equivalent to _undecim_=1 + 10.
[alpha]. The _e_ is _ein_=_one_. _Ein_lif, _ein_-lef, _ei_lef, _ei_lf,
_e_lf, Old High German; _and_lova, Old Frisian; _end_-leofan, _end_lufan,
Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted.
[beta]. The _-lev-_ is a modification of the root _laib-an_=_manere_=_to
stay_=_to be over_. Hence _eleven_=_one over_ (_ten_). This is _not_
universally admitted.
[gamma]. The _-n_ has not been well accounted for. It is peculiar to the
Low Germanic dialects.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.
12. _Twelve_=the root _two_ + the root _laib_=_two over_ (_ten_). _Tvalif_,
Moeso-Gothic; _zuelif_, Old High German; _toll_, Swedish. The same doubts
that apply to the doctrine of the _-lv-_ in _eleven_ representing the root
_-laib_, apply to the _-lv-_ in _twelve_.--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 946.
13. _Thirteen_=3 + 10. So on till twenty.
30. _Thirty_=3 x 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power
of the syllables _-teen_ and _-ty_ is illustrated by--
[alpha]. The Moeso-Gothic.--Here we find the root _tig-_ used as a true
substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek [Greek:
dek-as]. _Tv['a]im tigum thusandjom_=_duobus decadibus myriadum_. (Luke
xiv. 31.) _J[^e]r[^e] thrij[^e] tigiv['e]_=_annorum duarum decadum._ (Luke
iii. 23.) _thrins tiguns silubrinaize_=_tres decadas argenteorum._ (Matthew
xxvii. 3, 9.)--Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948. {276}
[beta]. The Icelandic.--"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of
the numeral substantive, _tigr_, declined like _vidhr_, and naturally
taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.
_Nom._ Fj['o]rir tigir manna = _four tens of men_.
_Gen._ Fjoegurra tiga manna = _of four tens of men_.
_Dat._ Fj['o]rum tigum manna = _to four tens of men_.
_Acc._ Fj['o]ra tiga manna = _four tens of men_.
"This is the form of the inflection in the best and oldest MSS. A little
later was adopted the _indeclinable_ form _tigi_, which was used
adjectivally."--Det Oldnorske Sprogs Grammatik, af P. A. Munch, og C. B.
Unger, Christiania, 1847.
s. 330. Generally speaking, the greater part of the numerals are
undeclined, even in inflected languages. As far as _number_ goes, this is
necessary.
_One_ is naturally and exclusively singular.
_Two_ is naturally dual.
The rest are naturally and exclusively plural.
As to the inflection of gender and cases, there is no reason why all the
numerals should not be as fully inflected as the Latin _unus_, _una_,
_unum_, _unius_.
* * * * *
{277}