NUMEllAL SYSTEMS. 45 



is between the two, and Hawaii, distant 3500 miles, it should be 

 coufined to the higher numbers. 



The last example here presented is from I^owcn's Yorul)a Dic- 

 tionary, in the 10th vol. Smithsonian Contributions. In this, an 

 African Language, traces of the same system also appear. Thus 

 in ordinary counting the first vowel is short, while among Avhat 

 the author terms " cardinals of price," up to forty, the vowel is 

 long ; thus okay, one> edzl, two ; okay, edzl. The reason given 

 for this is that the latter are contractions of owO-kay, oioo-edzi, 

 i. e. one cowrie, two cowries, &c. 



It thus appears that this peculiar arithmetic is of wide distri- 

 bution, and by no means confined to a single or even to cognate 

 races. A more perfect knowledge of barbarian languages would 

 probably show its still greater extension. In what process of the 

 human mind it has its origin, and the reasons for the singular 

 collocation of objects which different tribes embrace in the several 

 forms of the numerals, are questions of curious speculation. 



The division of objects into animate and inanimate, or, as they 

 have been termed by other writers, noble and ignoble, is a well- 

 known feature in several of the languages of North America. 

 Mr. Howse states that the Cree and Chippeway (Ojibwa) nouns 

 are divisible into two classes, animate and inanimate, analogous 

 to gender in European languages, but that many inanimate nouns, 

 from possessing some real or imaginary excellence, are personified 

 as animates. Perhaps a clue to this may be found in the pan- 

 theism, or rather pan-demonism of the Indian mythology. The 

 Indians of Oregon, for example, believe that not only all animals 

 were once people possessed of supernatural powers, or magicians, 

 but that prominent mountains, isolated rocks, very old trees, and 

 other remarkable objects, were so likewise, a belief which, in fact, 

 seems to have characterized the superstitions of all the tribes of 

 the continent. But, though this might account for a simple divi- 

 sion into animate and inanimate, embracing all such objects, it 

 would not explain the multiplicity of forms exhibited in some of 

 the examples above given. The disposition to particularize, and 

 the want of generic terms among barbarous races, may have had 

 some connection with this division, for since to adopt a different 

 system of counting every object would be impossible, the simple 

 desire to be specific may have led to an anomalous form of classi- 

 fication. 



