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.