A second system of this kind is still used in the pagination of manuscripts in Ceylon, Siam, and Burma, having also had its rise in southern India. In this the thirty-four consonants when followed by a (as ka ... la) designate the numbers 1-34; by ā (as kā ... lā), those from 35 to 68; by i (ki ... li), those from 69 to 102, inclusive; and so on.[[140]]

As already stated, however, the Hindu system as thus far described was no improvement upon many others of the ancients, such as those used by the Greeks and the Hebrews. Having no zero, it was impracticable to designate the tens, hundreds, and other units of higher order by the same symbols used for the units from one to nine. In other words, there was no possibility of place value without some further improvement. So the Nānā Ghāt

symbols required the writing of "thousand seven twenty-four" about like T 7, tw, 4 in modern symbols, instead of 7024, in which the seven of the thousands, the two of the tens (concealed in the word twenty, being originally "twain of tens," the -ty signifying ten), and the four of the units are given as spoken and the order of the unit (tens, hundreds, etc.) is given by the place. To complete the system only the zero was needed; but it was probably eight centuries after the Nānā Ghāt inscriptions were cut, before this important symbol appeared; and not until a considerably later period did it become well known. Who it was to whom the invention is due, or where he lived, or even in what century, will probably always remain a mystery.[[141]] It is possible that one of the forms of ancient abacus suggested to some Hindu astronomer or mathematician the use of a symbol to stand for the vacant line when the counters were removed. It is well established that in different parts of India the names of the higher powers took different forms, even the order being interchanged.[[142]] Nevertheless, as the significance of the name of the unit was given by the order in reading, these variations did not lead to error. Indeed the variation itself may have necessitated the introduction of a word to signify a vacant place or lacking unit, with the ultimate introduction of a zero symbol for this word.

To enable us to appreciate the force of this argument a large number, 8,443,682,155, may be considered as the Hindus wrote and read it, and then, by way of contrast, as the Greeks and Arabs would have read it.

Modern American reading, 8 billion, 443 million, 682 thousand, 155.

Hindu, 8 padmas, 4 vyarbudas, 4 kōṭis, 3 prayutas, 6 lakṣas, 8 ayutas, 2 sahasra, 1 śata, 5 daśan, 5.

Arabic and early German, eight thousand thousand thousand and four hundred thousand thousand and forty-three thousand thousand, and six hundred thousand and eighty-two thousand and one hundred fifty-five (or five and fifty).

Greek, eighty-four myriads of myriads and four thousand three hundred sixty-eight myriads and two thousand and one hundred fifty-five.

As Woepcke[[143]] pointed out, the reading of numbers of this kind shows that the notation adopted by the Hindus tended to bring out the place idea. No other language than the Sanskrit has made such consistent application, in numeration, of the decimal system of numbers. The introduction of myriads as in the Greek, and thousands as in Arabic and in modern numeration, is really a step away from a decimal scheme. So in the numbers below one hundred, in English, eleven and twelve are out of harmony with the rest of the -teens, while the naming of all the numbers between ten and twenty is not analogous to the naming of the numbers above twenty. To conform to our written system we should have ten-one, ten-two, ten-three, and so on, as we have twenty-one, twenty-two, and the like. The Sanskrit is consistent, the units, however, preceding the tens and hundreds. Nor did any other ancient people carry the numeration as far as did the Hindus.[[144]]