Portuguese, nove = 9. novo = new.
Irish, naoi = 9. nus = new.
Welsh, naw = 9. newydd = new.
Breton, nevez = 9. nuhue = new.[221]
This table might be extended still further, but the above examples show how widely diffused throughout the Aryan languages is this resemblance. The list certainly is an impressive one, and the student is at first thought tempted to ask whether all these resemblances can possibly have been accidental. But a single consideration sweeps away the entire argument as though it were a cobweb. All the languages through which this verbal likeness runs are derived directly or indirectly from one common stock; and the common every-day words, "nine" and "new," have been transmitted from that primitive tongue into all these linguistic offspring with but little change. Not only are the two words in question akin in each individual language, but _they are akin in all the languages_. Hence all these resemblances reduce to a single resemblance, or perhaps ident.i.ty, that between the Aryan words for "nine" and "new." This was probably an accidental resemblance, no more significant than any one of the scores of other similar cases occurring in every language. If there were any further evidence of the former existence of an Aryan octonary scale, the coincidence would possess a certain degree of significance; but not a shred has ever been produced which is worthy of consideration. If our remote ancestors ever counted by eights, we are entirely ignorant of the fact, and must remain so until much more is known of their language than scholars now have at their command. The word resemblances noted above are hardly more significant than those occurring in two Polynesian languages, the Fatuhivan and the Nakuhivan,[222] where "new" is a.s.sociated with the number 7. In the former case 7 is _fitu_, and "new" is _fou_; in the latter 7 is _hitu_, and "new" is _hou_. But no one has, because of this likeness, ever suggested that these tribes ever counted by the senary method. Another equally trivial resemblance occurs in the Tawgy and the Kama.s.sin languages,[223]
thus:
TAWGY. KAMa.s.sIN.
8. siti-data = 2 4. 8. sin-the"de = 2 4.
9. nameaitjuma = another. 9. amithun = another.
But it would be childish to argue, from this fact alone, that either 4 or 8 was the number base used.
In a recent antiquarian work of considerable interest, the author examines into the question of a former octonary system of counting among the various races of the world, particularly those of Asia, and brings to light much curious and entertaining material respecting the use of this number. Its use and importance in China, India, and central Asia, as well as among some of the islands of the Pacific, and in Central America, leads him to the conclusion that there was a time, long before the beginning of recorded history, when 8 was the common number base of the world. But his conclusion has no basis in his own material even. The argument cannot be examined here, but any one who cares to investigate it can find there an excellent ill.u.s.tration of the fact that a pet theory may take complete possession of its originator, and reduce him finally to a state of infantile subjugation.[224]
Of all numbers upon which a system could be based, 12 seems to combine in itself the greatest number of advantages. It is capable of division by 2, 3, 4, and 6, and hence admits of the taking of halves, thirds, quarters, and sixths of itself without the introduction of fractions in the result.
From a commercial stand-point this advantage is very great; so great that many have seriously advocated the entire abolition of the decimal scale, and the subst.i.tution of the duodecimal in its stead. It is said that Charles XII. of Sweden was actually contemplating such a change in his dominions at the time of his death. In pursuance of this idea, some writers have gone so far as to suggest symbols for 10 and 11, and to recast our entire numeral nomenclature to conform to the duodecimal base.[225] Were such a change made, we should express the first nine numbers as at present, 10 and 11 by new, single symbols, and 12 by 10. From this point the progression would be regular, as in the decimal scale--only the same combination of figures in the different scales would mean very different things. Thus, 17 in the decimal scale would become 15 in the duodecimal; 144 in the decimal would become 100 in the duodecimal; and 1728, the cube of the new base, would of course be represented by the figures 1000.
It is impossible that any such change can ever meet with general or even partial favour, so firmly has the decimal scale become intrenched in its position. But it is more than probable that a large part of the world of trade and commerce will continue to buy and sell by the dozen, the gross, or some multiple or fraction of the one or the other, as long as buying and selling shall continue. Such has been its custom for centuries, and such will doubtless be its custom for centuries to come. The duodecimal is not a natural scale in the same sense as are the quinary, the decimal, and the vigesimal; but it is a system which is called into being long after the complete development of one of the natural systems, solely because of the simple and familiar fractions into which its base is divided. It is the scale of civilization, just as the three common scales are the scales of nature. But an example of its use was long sought for in vain among the primitive races of the world. Humboldt, in commenting on the number systems of the various peoples he had visited during his travels, remarked that no race had ever used exclusively that best of bases, 12. But it has recently been announced[226] that the discovery of such a tribe had actually been made, and that the Aphos of Benue, an African tribe, count to 12 by simple words, and then for 13 say 12-1, for 14, 12-2, etc. This report has yet to be verified, but if true it will const.i.tute a most interesting addition to anthropological knowledge.
CHAPTER VI.
THE QUINARY SYSTEM.
The origin of the quinary mode of counting has been discussed with some fulness in a preceding chapter, and upon that question but little more need be said. It is the first of the natural systems. When the savage has finished his count of the fingers of a single hand, he has reached this natural number base. At this point he ceases to use simple numbers, and begins the process of compounding. By some one of the numerous methods ill.u.s.trated in earlier chapters, he pa.s.ses from 5 to 10, using here the fingers of his second hand. He now has two fives; and, just as we say "twenty," _i.e._ two tens, he says "two hands," "the second hand finished,"
"all the fingers," "the fingers of both hands," "all the fingers come to an end," or, much more rarely, "one man." That is, he is, in one of the many ways at his command, saying "two fives." At 15 he has "three hands" or "one foot"; and at 20 he pauses with "four hands," "hands and feet," "both feet," "all the fingers of hands and feet," "hands and feet finished," or, more probably, "one man." All these modes of expression are strictly natural, and all have been found in the number scales which were, and in many cases still are, in daily use among the uncivilized races of mankind.
In its structure the quinary is the simplest, the most primitive, of the natural systems. Its base is almost always expressed by a word meaning "hand," or by some equivalent circ.u.mlocution, and its digital origin is usually traced without difficulty. A consistent formation would require the expression of 10 by some phrase meaning "two fives," 15 by "three fives,"
etc. Such a scale is the one obtained from the Betoya language, already mentioned in Chapter III., where the formation of the numerals is purely quinary, as the following indicate:[227]
5. teente = 1 hand.
10. cayaente, or caya huena = 2 hands.
15. toazumba-ente = 3 hands.
20. caesa-ente = 4 hands.
The same formation appears, with greater or less distinctness, in many of the quinary scales already quoted, and in many more of which mention might be made. Collecting the significant numerals from a few such scales, and tabulating them for the sake of convenience of comparison, we see this point clearly ill.u.s.trated by the following:
TAMANAC.
5. amnaitone = 1 hand.
10. amna atse ponare = 2 hands.
ARAWAK, GUIANA.
5. abba tekkabe = 1 hand.
10. biamantekkabe = 2 hands.
JIVIRO.
5. alacotegladu = 1 hand.
10. catogladu = 2 hands.
NIAM NIAM
5. biswe 10. bauwe = 2d 5.
NENGONES
5. se dono = the end (of the fingers of 1 hand).
10. rewe tubenine = 2 series (of fingers).
SESAKE.[228]
5. lima = hand.
10. dua lima = 2 hands.
AMBRYM.[229]
5. lim = hand.
10. ra-lim = 2 hands.
PAMA.[229]
5. e-lime = hand.
10. ha-lua-lim = the 2 hands.
d.i.n.kA.[230]
5. wdyets.
10. wtyer, or wtyar = 5 2.