ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.
s. 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the
fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The
present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly
in all of the ordinal numbers.
_First._--In Moeso-Gothic, _fruma_, _frumist_; in Anglo-Saxon, _forma_,
_fyrmest_; in Old High German, _vurist_; in Old Norse, _fyrst_; in New High
German, _erst_. In all these words, whether in _m_, in _mst_, or in _st_,
there is a superlative form. The same is the case with _pratamas_,
Sanskrit; _fratemas_, Zend; [Greek: protos], Greek; _primus_, Latin;
_primas_, Lithuanic. Considering that, _compared with the other ordinals_,
the ordinal of _one_ is a sort of superlative, this is not at all
surprising.
Between the words _one_ and _first_ there is no etymological relation. This
is the case in most languages. _Unus_, _primus_, [Greek: heis], [Greek:
protos], &c.
s. 332. _Second._--Between this word and its cardinal, _two_, there is no
etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most,
languages. In Latin the cardinal is _duo_, and the ordinal _secundus_, a
gerund of _sequor_, and meaning _the following_. In Anglo-Saxon the form
was _se odher_=_the other_. In the present German, the ordinal is _zweite_,
a word etymologically connected with the cardinal _zwei_=_two_.
Old High German, _andar_; Old Saxon, _othar_; Old Frisian, _other_; Middle
Dutch, _ander_. In all these words we have the comparative form _-ter_; and
considering that, _compared with the word first_, the word _second_ is a
sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise
us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin
_alter_, and the Lithuanic _antras_, are the same.
s. 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to
their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.
1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and
_five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply
to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being
the case.
2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words
_first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the
other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to
the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain
distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is
peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal,
_one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a
comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with
the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be
either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with
one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to
be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_.
s. 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity
of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.
_This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may
deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of
comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_
objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may
determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_,
it has something in common; since both assert something concerning _one out
of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason.
He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive
{279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really
the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.
The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in
meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that
words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this
identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account
for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an
affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical
method.
At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed
by forms evidently allied.
At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion
between the forms obscure: and _vice vers[^a]_. Oftener, however, the case
is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of
ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The
metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence;
whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views,
however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative,
which is weak or strong according to its degree.
Compared with _three_, _four_, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the
addition of _th_, or _t_; and _th_, _dh_, _t_, or _d_, is the ordinal sign,
not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated
before, this is not the whole of the question.
The letter _t_ is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in
_tertius_, _quartus_, _quintus_, _sextus_; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos]
(_tritos_), [Greek: tetartos] (_tetartos_), [Greek: pemptos] (_pemptos_),
[Greek: hektos] (_hectos_), [Greek: ennatos] (_ennatos_), [Greek: dekatos]
(_dekatos_); 3. Sanskrit, as in _tritiyas_, _['c]atu['r]tas_,
_shasht'as_=_third_, _fourth_, _sixth_; 4. In Zend, as in _thrityas_=_the
third_, _haptathas_=_the seventh_; 5. In Lithuanic, as
_ketwirtas_=_fourth_, _penktas_=_fifth_, _szesztas_=_sixth_; 6. In Old
Slavonic, as in _c['e]tvertyi_=_fourth_, _pjatyi_=_fifth_,
_shestyi_=_sixth_, _devjatyi_=_ninth_, _desjatyi_=_tenth_. Speaking more
generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European
stock.
The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek
[Greek: hepta] (_hepta_), and Icelandic _sjau_, have been compared with the
Latin _septem_ and the Anglo-Saxon _seofon_. In the Greek and Icelandic
there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final
liquid (_m_ or _n_).
Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (_ennea_), and the Icelandic
_n['i]u_=_nine_, have been compared with the Latin _novem_ and the Gothic
_nigun_.
Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (_deka_), and the Icelandic _t['i]u_, have
been compared with the Latin _decem_ and the Gothic _tihun_=_ten_.
These three examples indicate the same circumstance; _viz._ that the _m_ or
_n_, in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, is no part of the original word.
s. 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; _viz._ that
the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination _-tam_: that
in some words, like the Latin _septimus,_ the whole form is preserved; that
in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=_fourth_, the _t_ only remains; and that
in others, as in _decimus_, the _m_ alone remains. Finally, that in
_seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, the final liquid, although now belonging to the
cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller
exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.
* * * * *
{281}