THE NUMERALS IN THE ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE. 471 



match," and in the E. pair, represents the root b a, meaning 

 " two." 



I thus arrange the words quoted in this paragraph : — roots — 

 (1) dva, (2) d-blia, (3) ba, (4) ma; derived from (1) dva are 

 L. and Gr. d u o, and all the other words with initial d ; derived 

 from (2) b h a are <S'. u b h a ; Gr. a m p h o ; L. a m b o ; derived 

 from (3j ba are Goth, bai; Ger. bei-de; Hind, ba-rah; 

 L. bis, bi-ni for bigni, bi-dens, &c.; Anstr. bu-la; H. 

 ^she)-bag; L. pa-r; E. pa-ir; derived from (4) ma are (?r. 

 m a k-k o r, ttc, mach-e; Etr. mach; G. (ma-ath) muth; 

 L. m u t ; L. v i c - i s ; and perhaps, L. m o v - e o ; G r. a - 

 m e i b - o. 



VII. The Etruscan word T i u R in the inscriptions is, in my 

 opinion, the numeral " three ;" at all events it very much 

 resembles the Aryan t r i ; tlie G. abstract number for " three " 

 is 1 1' i u r, which is sufficiently like t i u r, especially as the 

 Etruscans sometimes dropped the letter r after t, as in their 

 word Cluthumus)!A« for Clutaimnes<?Y«. Other I.-K. foi-ms for 

 " three " are t r i, t e o i r, t e o r a, of which the last two also 

 are very like t i u r. 



VITI. The Aryan number for " four " is made up of " one " 

 and "three" {cf. Bopp, I.e.). Thus, the S. chatur, "four," con- 

 sists of c h a, chat, from S. e k a, "one" (H. a c h a t h, e c h a d h), 

 and t u r, for t r i, "three;" the L. quat-tuor has its nearest 

 analogue in the G. cei-thir, "four," =I.-K. chiad, "one," 

 and I-K. t e o i r, " thre3." For these reasons I consider the Etrus- 

 can word z a t h r m, in these inscriptions, to be a contracted form 

 of z a 1 1 h r a m, an adjective form meaning " foui'th " (by Result 

 2), the body of the word being zal for esal, "one" {tU 

 su])ra). and thr, "three," with the adjective termination am 

 added. 



Under this head T may be allowed to introduce a reference to 

 our own Australian aborigines and their numerals. Everywhere, 

 from Sir John Lubbock down to the commonest scribbler in a 

 daily newspaper, it is quoted as a proof of their degradation that 

 they count no higher than one, two, three. Suppose that an ex- 

 amination of the numerals of the Aryans, the most civilised of 

 all the families of mankind, should prove that they too count no 

 higher tiian three, and for four say one-three, and for five 

 say h a n d, and so on ; while they are permitted, unchallenged, to 

 say on e-t h r ee, is it to Vje urged against our Australians as a 

 proof of their savagedom that they say two-two, for four? If 

 they are still to be talked of as among the very lowest of savage 

 tribes, other proofs than their numerals should be given ; foi", in 

 many of the most ancient religions, three was a sacred and 

 perfect number, a neplus ultra; and I believe that a careful iiujuiry 



