Chapter 53
-- 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.
-- 329. It is an ethnological fact, that the numerals are essentially the same throughout the whole Indo-European cla.s.s 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 lat.i.tude 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 lat.i.tude; 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 a.s.sumed changes can be verified
[alpha]. _Fidvor_, Moeso-Gothic. To be compared with _quatuor_.
[beta]. [Greek: Pisures], aeolic. Ill.u.s.trates the change between [tau]- and [pi]- (allied to _f-_), within the pale of the cla.s.sical 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; _funf_, 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], _s.e.x_.
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 10, or three decads. This difference in the decimal power of the syllables _-teen_ and _-ty_ is ill.u.s.trated 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]. _Tvaim tigum usandjom_=_duobus decadibus myriadum_. (Luke xiv.
31.) _Jere rije tigive_=_annorum duarum decadum._ (Luke iii. 23.) _rins 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 _vir_, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.
_Nom._ Fjorir tigir manna = _four tens of men_.
_Gen._ Fjogurra tiga manna = _of four tens of men_.
_Dat._ Fjorum tigum manna = _to four tens of men_.
_Acc._ Fjora 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.
-- 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}