TWENTY-THIRD ORDINARY MEETING. 287 



The Assyrian plural forms are anu, unu and utu, from which the 

 Egyptian forms may have come by modification or contraction. The 

 final vowel, however, is the same in both languages. 



The most common form of the Assyrian plural, however, is e or i, 

 which is simply the Hebrew im with the final consonant omitted, 

 and there are even examples of this plural form in Hebrew without 

 the final m. 



■ In the forms of the numerals there is an evident trace of close 

 family relationship between the Ancient Egyptian and the Semitic 

 languages. It is not so evident in them all, but is quite distinct in 

 a few. And here it seems to me we might naturally expect to find 

 greater difierence of form. The Egyptians, from their mental bias, 

 their national public works, and their social customs, continually 

 made use of their numerals. In the measurement of land, in the com- 

 putations regarding the rise and fall of the Nile, in their architecture 

 and elementary astronomy, they would require frequently to use the 

 numerals. Besides, on the walls of tombs and temples, scribes are 

 seen noting down on their tablet the possessions of the Egyptian 

 noblemen, or the spoils and prisoners of war. In such circumstances, 

 and among such a people, we might expect a priori a considerable 

 divergency between the Egyptian forms of the numerals and those 

 of the Semitic and Aryan tongues. 



The following table will show the close relationship, however, of a 

 few of the numerals : 



Egyptian. Heb. Sanskrit. Assyrian. Grehk. Lat. Germ. 



Tia one Echad eka akhadu or edu e'i unus ein 



sen two Shenayim sanie 



■ses six Shishah shash sisatu i^ sex sechs 



rsefekh seven Shivah saptan sibittu Enra septem sieben 



In tl*e Hebrew for two, the dual form is used, which if we remove, 

 the form then will remain almost identical with the Egyptian. If 

 we take the Hebrew form for six which is employed with feminine 

 nouns, we have Shesh, which displays its intimate relationship with 

 the Egyptian ses. In the above table it will be seen that the least 

 variety exists in the case of number seven. This seems to me to be 

 accounted for probably in this way. This was the sacred number 

 among the Semitic and Egyptian races, and would be likely, there- 

 fore, to undergo less change than the others. The form that embodied 

 their religious ideas would soon come to be reoarded as sacred as the 



