The Number Concept: Its Origin and Development

System

no distinct number sense at all, as far as could be judged from the absence, in their language, of numerals in the proper sense of the word. How they indicated any number greater than one is a point still requiring investigation. In all other known instan

also notably poor in this respect. In the Mbocobi dialect of this language the only native numerals are y?a tvak, 1, and yfioaca, 2. The Puris22 count omi, 1, curiri, 2, prica, many; and the Botocudos23 mokenam, 1, uruhu, many. The Fuegans,24 supposed to have been able at one time to count to 10, have but three numerals,-kaoueli, 1, compaipi, 2, maten, 3. The Campas of Peru25 possess only three separate words for the expression of number,-patrio, 1, pitteni, 2, mahuani, 3. Above 3 they proceed by combinations, as 1 and 3 for 4, 1 and 1 and 3 for 5. Counting above 10 is, however, entirely inconceivable to them, and any number beyond that limit they indicate by tohaine, many. The Conibos,26 of the same region, had, before their contact with the Spanish, only atchoupre, 1, and rrabui, 2; though they made some slight progress above 2 by means of reduplication. The Orejones, one of the low, degraded tribes of the Upper Amazon,27 have no names for num

ill larger number of tribes show an ability to count one step further, to 4; but beyond this limit the majority of Australian and Tasmanian tribes do not go. It seems most remarkable that any human being should possess the ability to count to 4, and not to 5. The number of fingers on one hand furnishes so obvious a limit to any of these rudimentary systems, that positive evidence is needed before one can accept the statement. A careful examination of the numerals in upwards of a hundred Australian dialects leaves no doubt, however, that such is the fact. The Australians in almost all cases count by pairs; and so pronounced is this tendency that they pay but little attention to the fingers. Some tribes do not appear ever to count beyond 2-a single pair. Many more go one step further; but if they do, they are as likely as not to designate their next numeral as two-one, or possibly, one-two. If this step is taken, we

moa, 3, and bulla, plenty. In the Pinjarra dialect we find doombart, 1, gugal, 2, murdine, 3, boola, plenty; and in the dialect described as belonging to "Eyre's Sand Patch," three definite terms are given-kean, 1, koojal, 2, yalgatta, 3, while a fourth, murna, served to describe anything greater. In all these examples the fourth numeral is indefinite; and the same statement is true of many other Australian languages. But more commonly still we find 4, and perhaps 3 also, expressed by reduplication. In the Port Mackay dialect35 the latter numeral is compound, the count being warpur, 1, boolera, 2, boolera warpur, 3. For 4 the term is not given. In the dialect wh

xamples have indicated, their Australian neighbours were but little better off. In one or two instances we do find Australian numeral scales which reach 10, and perhaps we may safely say 20. One of these is given in full in a subsequent chapter, and its structure gives rise to the su

power of counting. They have ubatulda, 1, and ikporda, 2; but they can go no further, except in a manner similar to that of the Veddas. Above two they proceed wholly by means of the fingers, saying as they tap the nose with each successive finger, anka, "and this." Only the more intelligent of the Andamans can count at all, many of them seeming to be as nearly destitute of the number sense as it is possible for a human being to be. The Bushmen43 of South Africa have but two numerals, the pronunciation of which can hardly be indicated without other resources than those of the English alphabet. Their word for 3 means, simply, many, as in the case of some of the Australian tribes. The Watchandies44 have but two simple numerals, and their entir

tain any accurate information about the numeral system of these people, since in ordinary conversation they are not in the habit of specifying any numbers above five." Counting is often carried higher than this among certain of these northern tribes, but, save for occasional examples, it is limited at best. Dr. Franz Boas, who has travelled extensively among the Eskimos, and whose observations are always of the most accurate nature, once told the author that he never met an Eskimo who could count above 15. Their numerals actually do extend much higher; and a stray numeral of Danish origin is now and then met with, showing that the more intelligent among them are a

imit; or perhaps 10,000; and sometimes the savage carries his number system on into the hundreds of thousands or millions. Indeed, the high limit to which some savage races carry their numeration is far more worthy of remark than the entire absence of the number sense exhibited by others of apparently e

has no number word that will express for him anything higher than 2; but with the assistance of his fingers he gropes his way on as far as 10. The Veddas, the Andamans, the Guachi, the Botocudos, the Eskimos, and the thousand and one other tribes which furnish such scanty numeral systems, almost all proceed with more or less readiness as far

ctual experience among savage races. Nor, on the other hand, is the development of a numeral system an infallible index of mental power, or of any real approach toward civilization. A continued use of the trading and bargaining faculties must and does result in a familiarity with numbers sufficient to enable savages to perform unexpected feats in reckoning. Among some of the West African tribes this has actually been found to be the case; and among the Yorubas of Abeokuta49 the extraordinary saying, "You may seem very clever, but you can't tell nine times nine," shows how surprising

could an estimate be made by the average onlooker which would approximate with any degree of accuracy the size of the assembly? Or if an observer were stationed at a certain point, and 10,000 persons were to pass him in single file without his counting them as they passed, what sort of an estimate would he make of their number? The truth seems to be that our mental conception of number is much more limited than is commonly thought, and that we unconsciously adopt some new unit as a standard of comparison when we wish to render intelligible to our minds any number of considerable magnitude. For example, we say that A has a fortune of $1,000,000. The impression is at once conveyed of a considerable degree of wealth, but it is rather from the fact that that fortune represents an annual income of $40,000 than, from the actual magnitude of the fortune itself. The number 1,000,000 is, in itself, so greatly in excess of anything that enters into our daily experience that we have but a vague conception of it, except as something very great. We are not, after all, so very much better off than the child who, with his arms about his mother's neck, informs her with perfect gravity and sincerity that he "loves her a million bushels." His idea is merely of some very great amount, and our own is often but little clearer when we use the expressions which are so easily represented by a few digits. Among the uneducated po