Numeral systems of Mexico and Central America / by Cyrus Thomas.

  • Cyrus Thomas
Date:
[1901]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Numeral systems of Mexico and Central America / by Cyrus Thomas. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    81/116 page 927
    ‘*•27 exiunplo is noted from Polynesia or from any of the Malayan dialects. So far the data seem to agree with C'onant's conelu'iion. hut more detailed examination presents at least some exceptions. AVe see the Nahuatlan family divided into two grt>ups in this respect, the Azteean and part of the Sonoran branches using the vigesi- mal system, while the Shoshonean and other divisions of the Sonoran branch follow the decimal method. Among the multiplicity of small linguistic families in California and Oregon examples of the vigesimal system occur sporadically, so far as is indicated l\v the still incomplete data, even occui’ring in one or two small tribes of a family while other tribes of the same family use the decimal system. But it is necessary to bear in mind that here, as in the Shoshonean group, the li.sts have been obtained after there has been long intercourse with the whites, which may have materially modified original systems. These facds are sufficient to show that ethnic lines do not always go\ ern the range of the system. d’hat there is a very genei’al agreement among students in tin* opin- ion that as a general rule the adoption of the vigesimal system results from bringing the toes as well as the lingers into the count is admitted, yet it is possible that there are more exceptions to the rule than is supposed. That every vigesimal as well as decimal system has .5 at the base, or in other words, started with the hand, may be .safely assumed, and that whenever 2o is expre.s.sly or impliedly understood as the equivalent of ‘Cine man” the toes are coi>xid<-r>‘d in the count may, perhaps, also be assumed. However, there are rea.sons for ludieving that in some instances the hands alone were used in actual count, being doubled to make the whole man; yet in such cases the toes were ])rob- ably originally used. It is possible and even probable that in .some casi's when' the numeral terms have no reference to the toes or man a changt' from the original name has taken place. Such a change .seems to be shown in the name for ^D in the Mayan dialects. In the Huasteca, Pokonchi, Pokomam, Cakchiquel, Quiche, Uspanteca, Ixil. Aguacateca, and Mam the name for 20 is “’man.” while in the Maya, Tzotzil. Chanabal. C'hol. and Kekchi other terms are u.sed, but even in these (except the Maya and Choi) or ““man,” is introduced into the terms for the mul- tiples of 20. Even in the Mexican (Aztec), which Conant looks upon as an exception, criiijyidlli { — qw 20), which signifies ““1 counting,” evidently refers to something .so well known and so geneiully under- stood as to require no explanatory term. AVhat else could this, the thing counted, have been than one man—the lingers and toes^ Although it must be admitted that there are some .systems which can not be explained in this way, yet the explanation may be accepted as generally, in fact, almost univer.sally. applicable. Even among the Greenland E.skimo. where we would suppose Professor McGee's sug-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3