Four=wors`tcho, Suanic. A transposition of tchowors=the Sanskrit ćatvâras.—Here, remember the Gothic and Welsh forms, fidvôr, and pedwar, respectively.
Five=wochus`i, Suanic. The wo- of this form is the pa- of the Sanskrit pa-nća, whilst the -chu- is the ća of the same word. The -t- is the t of the Slavonic forms, fya-tj=five; ses-tj=six; devja-ti=nine, and desja-ti=ten.
Six=ekhwssi, Georgian=sas, Sanskrit; csvas, Zend; achses, Trôn.
Seven=swidi, Georgian. A transposition of siwdi=supta, Sanskrit; septem, Latin; ἕπτα, Greek, &c. It is stated of the numbers six and seven that "their Indo-European origin is preeminently capable of proof."
Eight=rwa, ruo, &c.=as`ta, Sanskrit. Here the s is lost, as in Hindostani, and Bengali, ât`, and ât; t becomes d; and d is changed to r.
The numeral nine is let alone.
Ten=jest, Suanic=das`a, Sanskrit.
I do not say that there may not be letter-changes which make all this feasible. There may or may not be. I only lay before critics, the amount of change assumed.
In 1845, I announced, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, that the closest philological affinity of the Dioscurian languages was with the Aptotic ones. This I had brought myself to believe from a comparison of the words only. Soon afterwards, Mr. Norriss, of the Asiatic Society, instead of expressing surprise at my doctrine, said that, upon grammatical grounds, he held the same opinion.