CHAPTER XII.
OF THE CARDINAL NUMBERS.
[§ 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 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.
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; ἑῖς (ἓν), Greek.
2. Two=duo, δύο.
3. Three=tres, τρεῖς.
4. Four=quatuor, τέτταρα. This is apparently problematical. Nevertheless, the assumed changes can be verified by the following forms:—
α. Fidvor, Mœso-Gothic. To be compared with quatuor.
β. Πίσυρες, Æolic. Illustrates the change between τ- and π- (allied to f-), within the pale of the classical languages.
5. Five=quinque, πέντε. Verified by the following forms:—
α. Πέμπε, Æolic Greek.
β. Pump, Welsh. These account for the change from the n + t in πέντε to m + p.
γ. Fimf, Mœso-Gothic; fünf, Modern High German.
δ. Fem, Norse.
The change from the π- of πέντε to the qu- of quinque is the change so often quoted by Latin and Celtic scholars between p and k: ἵππος, ἵκκος, equus.
6. Six=ἓξ, sex.
7. Seven=ἑπτὰ, septem.
This form is difficult. The Mœso-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.
8. Eight=ὀκτὼ, octo.
9. Nine=ἐννέα, novem. The Mœso-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=δέκα, decem. The Mœso-Gothic form is tihun; wherein the h=the c of decem and the κ of δέκα. The Icelandic form is tiu, and, like δέκα, 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.
α. The e is ein=one. Einlif, ein-lef, eilef, eilf, elf, Old High German; andlova, Old Frisian; end-leofan, endlufan, Anglo-Saxon. This is universally admitted.
β. 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.
γ. 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, Mœso-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 illustrated by—
α. The Mœso-Gothic.—Here we find the root tig- used as a true substantive, equivalent in form as well as power to the Greek δέκ-ας. Tváim tigum þusandjom=duobus decadibus myriadum. (Luke xiv. 31.) Jêrê þrijê tigivé=annorum duarum decadum. (Luke iii. 23.) þrins tiguns silubrinaize=tres decadas argenteorum. (Matthew xxvii. 3, 9.)—Deutsche Grammatik, ii. 948.
β. The Icelandic.—"The numbers from 20 to 100 are formed by means of the numeral substantive, tigr, declined like viðr, and naturally taking the word which it numerically determines in the genitive case.
| Nom. | Fjórir tigir manna | = four tens of men. |
| Gen. | Fjögurra tiga manna | = of four tens of men. |
| Dat. | Fjórum tigum manna | = to four tens of men. |
| Acc. | Fjóra 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.