CHAPTER XIII.

ON THE ORDINAL NUMBERS.

s. 331. The remarks at the close of the last chapter but one indicated the fact that superlative forms were found beyond the superlative degree. The present chapter shows that they are certainly found in some, and possibly in all of the ordinal numbers.

_First._--In Moeso-Gothic, _fruma_, _frumist_; in Anglo-Saxon, _forma_, _fyrmest_; in Old High German, _vurist_; in Old Norse, _fyrst_; in New High German, _erst_. In all these words, whether in _m_, in _mst_, or in _st_, there is a superlative form. The same is the case with _pratamas_, Sanskrit; _fratemas_, Zend; [Greek: protos], Greek; _primus_, Latin; _primas_, Lithuanic. Considering that, _compared with the other ordinals_, the ordinal of _one_ is a sort of superlative, this is not at all surprising.

Between the words _one_ and _first_ there is no etymological relation. This is the case in most languages. _Unus_, _primus_, [Greek: heis], [Greek: protos], &c.

s. 332. _Second._--Between this word and its cardinal, _two_, there is no etymological connexion. This is the case in many, if not in most, languages. In Latin the cardinal is _duo_, and the ordinal _secundus_, a gerund of _sequor_, and meaning _the following_. In Anglo-Saxon the form was _se odher_=_the other_. In the present German, the ordinal is _zweite_, a word etymologically connected with the cardinal _zwei_=_two_.

Old High German, _andar_; Old Saxon, _othar_; Old Frisian, _other_; Middle Dutch, _ander_. In all these words we have the comparative form _-ter_; and considering that, _compared with the word first_, the word _second_ is a sort of {278} comparative, there is nothing in the circumstance to surprise us. The Greek forms [Greek: deuteros] and [Greek: heteros], the Latin _alter_, and the Lithuanic _antras_, are the same.

s. 333. With the third ordinal number begin difficulties: 1. in respect to their form; 2. in respect to the idea conveyed by them.

1. Comparing _third_, _fourth_, _fifth_, &c., with _three_, _four_, and _five_, the formation of the ordinal from the cardinal form may seem simply to consist in the addition of _d_ or _th_. Such, however, is far from being the case.

2. Arguing from the nature of the first two ordinals, namely, the words _first_ and _second_, of which one has been called a superlative and the other a comparative, it may seem a simple matter to associate, in regard to the rest, the idea of ordinalism with the idea of comparison. A plain distinction, however, will show that the case of the first two ordinals is peculiar. _First_ is a superlative, not as compared with its cardinal, _one_, but as compared with the other numerals. _Second_, or _other_, is a comparative, not as compared with its cardinal, _two_, but as compared with the numeral _one_. Now it is very evident, that, if the other ordinals be either comparatives or superlatives, they must be so, not as compared with one another, but as compared with their respective cardinals. _Sixth_, to be anything like a superlative, must be so when compared with _six_.

s. 334. Now there are, in etymology, two ways of determining the affinity of ideas. The first is the metaphysical, the second the empirical, method.

_This is better than that_, is a sentence which the pure metaphysician may deal with. He may first determine that there is in it the idea of comparison; and next that the comparison is the comparison between _two_ objects, and no more than two. This idea he may compare with others. He may determine, that, with a sentence like _this is one and that is the other_, it has something in common; since both assert something concerning _one out of two objects_. Upon this connexion in sense he is at liberty to reason. He is at liberty to conceive that in certain languages words expressive {279} of allied ideas may also be allied in form. Whether such be really the case, he leaves to etymologists to decide.

The pure etymologist proceeds differently. He assumes the connexion in meaning from the connexion in form. All that he at first observes is, that words like _other_ and _better_ have one and the same termination. For this identity he attempts to give a reason, and finds that he can best account for it by presuming some affinity in sense. Whether there be such an affinity, he leaves to the metaphysician to decide. This is the empirical method.

At times the two methods coincide, and ideas evidently allied are expressed by forms evidently allied.

At times the connexion between the ideas is evident; but the connexion between the forms obscure: and _vice vers[^a]_. Oftener, however, the case is as it is with the subjects of the present chapter. Are the ideas of ordinalism in number, and of superlativeness in degree, allied? The metaphysical view, taken by itself, gives us but unsatisfactory evidence; whilst the empirical view, taken by itself, does the same. The two views, however, taken together, give us evidence of the kind called cumulative, which is weak or strong according to its degree.

Compared with _three_, _four_, &c., all the ordinals are formed by the addition of _th_, or _t_; and _th_, _dh_, _t_, or _d_, is the ordinal sign, not only in English, but in the other Gothic languages. But, as stated before, this is not the whole of the question.

The letter _t_ is found, with a similar power, 1. In Latin, as in _tertius_, _quartus_, _quintus_, _sextus_; 2. Greek, as in [Greek: tritos] (_tritos_), [Greek: tetartos] (_tetartos_), [Greek: pemptos] (_pemptos_), [Greek: hektos] (_hectos_), [Greek: ennatos] (_ennatos_), [Greek: dekatos] (_dekatos_); 3. Sanskrit, as in _tritiyas_, _['c]atu['r]tas_, _shasht'as_=_third_, _fourth_, _sixth_; 4. In Zend, as in _thrityas_=_the third_, _haptathas_=_the seventh_; 5. In Lithuanic, as _ketwirtas_=_fourth_, _penktas_=_fifth_, _szesztas_=_sixth_; 6. In Old Slavonic, as in _c['e]tvertyi_=_fourth_, _pjatyi_=_fifth_, _shestyi_=_sixth_, _devjatyi_=_ninth_, _desjatyi_=_tenth_. Speaking more generally, it is found, with a similar force, throughout the Indo-European stock.

The following forms indicate a fresh train of reasoning. {280} The Greek [Greek: hepta] (_hepta_), and Icelandic _sjau_, have been compared with the Latin _septem_ and the Anglo-Saxon _seofon_. In the Greek and Icelandic there is the absence, in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon the presence, of a final liquid (_m_ or _n_).

Again, the Greek forms [Greek: ennea] (_ennea_), and the Icelandic _n['i]u_=_nine_, have been compared with the Latin _novem_ and the Gothic _nigun_.

Thirdly, the Greek [Greek: deka] (_deka_), and the Icelandic _t['i]u_, have been compared with the Latin _decem_ and the Gothic _tihun_=_ten_.

These three examples indicate the same circumstance; _viz._ that the _m_ or _n_, in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, is no part of the original word.

s. 335. The following hypotheses account for these phenomena; _viz._ that the termination of the ordinals is the superlative termination _-tam_: that in some words, like the Latin _septimus,_ the whole form is preserved; that in some, as in [Greek: tetartos]=_fourth_, the _t_ only remains; and that in others, as in _decimus_, the _m_ alone remains. Finally, that in _seven_, _nine_, and _ten_, the final liquid, although now belonging to the cardinal, was once the characteristic of the ordinal number. For a fuller exhibition of these views, see Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, iii. 640.

* * * * *

{281}