KTHKOLOGY OF THE 1ND0*PAG1FI0 ISLANDS. 



6 f4, 10), 7 (3, 10), 8 (2, 1O)»0 (1» 10). In llie Semitico* African 

 Bystt'imf terms for 7, d anJ formed in tha same mode, occur in 

 pevei-al languagRg. 



The corabiuaiion of servile definiUTCs with those which are 

 used as mimeral roots, is cominon to nearly ali formationg, al- 

 though in mmy of the agglutinative and fiexional ibe two elements 

 are more or lees concreted, ahraded and diegnised, and the accord- 

 ance between the postfix and current possessive or qualitive parti- 

 cles has si;ldona been preserved. The Djavirian postfixes -du,-ni See, 

 di, -ti, -ji kCf and-ia. are not prevalent in the Scylhic numeral sys- 

 tems. They are Caucaso-AfVican. In the Semttico-Libyan pyslema 

 iho dental is a common postfix with numerals. In that formation it 

 has acquired a feminine power, but it appears to liave been origin- 

 ally «omraon« 



From these notices it appears tljat the Dravirian system 

 in its ultimate definitive roots, in its successive develop men is 

 or acquisitions of binary, quinary and decimal modes of nume- 

 ration, in the mode of expressing the numbers immediately below 

 10 with reference to it, in the recurrence of the unit to express 5 

 and 10, and in the use of servile definitives with the numeral rootf«, 

 reserablea most other decimal systems in ihe world* The root* 

 are found as defini lives in many other formations (Scythic, Tibeto- 

 Ultmindian, Cimcasian, Semitico-African) ; and in many other 

 languages tlicy are also used as numerals and numeral ele* 

 men la. The Binvirian system has this peculiarity, that in 

 Aeoneaian languages we have its pureJy binary stage preserved 

 to this day. Until all the Aso-African and the connected Ameri- 

 can numeral systems have been thoroughly analysed and compar- 

 ed, it does not appear possible to trace the later developments of 

 the Dravirian to their histprical causes. The sjstem certainly 

 has not been borrowed from any of the later dominant races of 

 S. W. Asia on the one side (Iranian, Semitic, Scythic), nor from 

 the Chinese on the other. It has elements in common with most 

 of these systems, and it must be considered as equally archaic and 

 independent. Its couucction with them must be exceedingly 

 remote. It belongs to an era when neither they nor Draviiiari 

 bad taken their existing forms. The ninnerul application of th« 

 detinilivos probably originated in a prolo-Scythic formation, like 



