APPENDIX. 335 



difterent forms and with different powers in different dia- 

 lects of the same language, and different languages of 

 the same class, even where, in the primary and normal 

 signification, they may be wanting in others. The first of 

 these facts is a contribution to the laws of language in 

 general ; the second shews that a great amount of appa- 

 rent difference may be exhibited on the surface of a lan- 

 guage which disappears as the analysis proceeds. 



In rude languages the Numerals vary with the dialect 

 more than most other words. We can understand this by 

 imagining what the case would be in English if one of our 

 dialects counted things by the brace, another by the pair, 

 and a third by the couple. Nevertheless, if we bear in 

 mind the Greek forms 6a\a(T(Ta and OaXavTa, we may fairly 

 suppose that the Kowrarega word for two, or qnassur, is 

 the same word with the Head of Australian Bight kootera, 

 the Parnkalla huttara, and the W. Australian Itardura, 

 having the same meaning. 



The difference, then, between the numerals of the Aus- 

 tralian languages — and it is undoubtedly great — is no 

 proof of any fundamental difference of structure or origin. 

 It is just what occui's in the languages of Africa, and, in a 

 still greater degree, in those of America. 



The extent to which the numeration is carried is a matter 

 of more importance. Possibly a numeration limited to the 

 first three, four, or five numbers is the effect of intellectual 

 inferiority. It is certainly a cause that continues it. As 

 a measure of ethnological affinity it is unimportant. In 

 America we have, within a Kmited range of languages, 

 vigesimal systems like the Mexican, and systems limited 

 to the three first units like the Caribb. The difference 

 between a vigesimal and decimal system arises simply 

 from the practice of counting by the fingers and toes col- 



