THOMAS| ORIGIN OF NUMBER NAMES 877 
numbers below 5 is not deemed of special interest in the present dis- 
cussion, which relates more directly to the systems, we begin with 5.1 
fo or jo, the name for 5 in all the Mayan dialects (except the Huas- 
teca) when the affixes are omitted, is without any signification except 
as a numeral, so far as is now known, that seems to be appropriate to 
this use. Bancroft gives *‘ entry,” as is stated above, but this, though 
one signification of the term, has no apparent application here. If 
a guess be permissible, I would offer the following suggestion: In 
Stoll’s list for 5 we notice that the name for this number in Cakchiquel 
is wuoo, and for 15 in Quekehi is wwolahu, and in Cakchiquel wuolahuh 
(substituting the / for j). Now, as 6 is wae, ewak, or vuok, 7 wuk, vuky, 
or vuuk, and 8 waxak, uaxvok, ov vuarak, is it not possible that ho or 
ois an abbreviation of a word beginning with w or wu, as vol, which, 
in addition to its signification (as a verb) **to make round,” *‘to will,” 
also, according to Brasseur, signifies *‘ filled wp,” *‘full, entire,” ete. ¢ 
Henderson, manuscript Maya-English dictionary, gives as another 
meaning ‘‘all in one,” **the gross amount,” and Beltran, Arte del 
Idioma Maya, states that in composition it signifies ‘‘todo junto,” 
oe 
which is substantially the same signification as that given by Brasseur. 
The term was also used, according to all the authorities, in counting 
round or solid things, as bundles of cotton, ete. As Perez informs 
us that the ancient form of the word was /o/, it is possible that in 

1It is to be hoped, however, that Professor MeGee, or some one who has given thought to the sub- 
ject, will carry forward these investigations, as the working out of the beginnings of counting, 
and the origin of the lower number names, will have an important bearing on some of the problems 
of ethnology and linguistics not yet completely solved. The field most likely to yield fruitful results 
is of course to be found in the languages and customs of the lower savage tribes. The more the rela- 
tion of 2 and 4 to one another is studied the more important becomes Professor McGee's suggestion 
that these numbers represent the first two steps in many primitive counts. Thestatement by Conant, 
quoted in the preceding note, that ‘‘the Australians in almost all cases count by pairs,’”’ seems to 
be exactly in line with this suggestion. Curr, to whom Conant refers as ‘the best authority on this 
subject,’ believes that where (among the Australians) a distinet word for 4 is given, investigators 
have been deceived in every case. This would seem to explain the supposed use of pairs; the 2 was 
used in naming the 4. This tendency, as indicated above in the text, is found in various dialects 
in widely separated countries. As a few examples we note the following: 
| Jiviros | Bakairi 
toya (Si . 1 x * 
Be poves(south (South |(South Amer- Torres Straits 
5 America)) ica) 
| 
2 cayapa eatu asage okosa 
4 cajezea = 2 with | encatu asage-asage | okosa-okosa 
plural termina- | 
, | 
tion | 
| 





Mosquito (Central Watchandies (South 5 Tee ey prea 
America) Africa) Karankawa (Texas) 
= eae a ais 
2 wal utauara haikaia | 
4 wal-wal atarra-utarra hayo hakn=2x2 
| 

Many examples might be presented, but these will suffice to show how widely spread they are, 
Australia and South America being the regions of most frequent occurrence, and few examples being 
found in Polynesian dialects. 
