58 



KTHNOLOSr OF THE IFDO-PACirie iSLAKBff. 



principle tbat 10 is named 1 in many denary ajslemn. 5 was <me 

 lale," counted on llie Jingei a of one hand, as 10 was " one tale/' 

 reckoned on the fingers of bolfi hands* One of ihe forma of t!ie 

 Dmvirian definitive, demonstraiive and 3id pronoun which is 

 used as 1 in Uie tm-m on, mi &lc, is jati^ ayi^ nye^ ai kc, ThU 

 would appeal' to be llic root of 5 in the South Oravirian drulecte, 

 (Comp. Takiva ave " he" &c., ayi-tto " ibi*, " ayi-nti, &). 

 A, 0, 0, is still more elliptic than the ai of 5, and like 

 it has the form of a mere definitive. The Toda form, o, 

 h iidentified with on^ 1, in II, and iha term would thus appear 

 lo have been a quinary one, 5, 1, In the Appendix, al- 

 ihough considering it probable that the root is a, I hare refer- 

 red it to tra, era, 2, the a appearing to point lo it rather thai* 

 to on kc, 1. But the Totla o-r, lias the pjoper vowel of 1, and 

 it occurs in the same form in 11. The Tuluva and Gond a^', Gj 

 has the postfix of 1 (on-^t T., on-di G.) and not of2(-<i«T,, 

 -nu G.) The -ra of the Mai. 6 coiTesponds with the -na of 1, 

 and not with the -du or -iulu of *2. (The postfixes of the other 

 dialects are the same, or nearif ao, in 1 and 2). The term for 5 

 would thua appear to have been a quinary one, 5, 1, the word for 

 5 haviug been disused for bn-:viiy's sake. In many other formations 

 a quinary system appears superimj>osed on a binary and ternary one 

 or on a compound of both, and it Is only in the crudest glossaries 

 that tlie term for 5 is retained in the higher numhei's. The root 

 of the Dravirian G is thus merely a variety of that for 1. 



The e, ye, of 7 has the same character. It can only be 

 referred to the e, ye, of 2 (5, 2). In B, e, en, again occars ae the 

 representative of 2, and the formation of this term as 2, IQ 

 and of 9 as 1, 10, cleai ly indicates that the denary scale was 

 saperimposed on an older and more limited one, probably quinarv 

 as far as it went, 1 j 2 j 3; 4 ; 5 ; 1, 5 ; 2, 5* There would also 

 appear to have been a quinary S (t. e, 5, 3). In the Appendix the 

 Gond form, ana-mu-r, is omitted. It resembles the Tuluva e&r- 

 ame and the Telugu en-imi-cl*. In all these forms the labial unit 

 of 10 has neither the fonn v as in 1 of Telugu and Todava^ nor 

 that of Wp p, bf as in 10 and the higher numbers in all the dialects. 

 It preserves the m of the Kol 1 and of the Dravirian 3. Tbe 

 Gond 10 hm the form pa-cfa of Malayalam^ while 1 baa the fono 



