[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "] SIR,—In your article of
June 17th I was much struck with the numerical system detailed. I have a leaning towards the science (etymology) described by Voltaire as one "in which vowels don't count and consonants mighty little " (les voyelles ne font rien et les consonnes font peu de chose). Of course I could not help seeing the resemblance of yan and tan to our own one and two. Tethera and pethera gave me pause, because tethera suggests the Greek Tio•oapes rather than three, or even tree (Latin). But looking to the middle and modern Welsh I find petuar and pedwar for four, and these are sufficiently like the Latin quatuor to justify the acceptance of pethera and tethera as four and three respectively. Then pimp and dik are obviously vivre and alica ; but I confess myself perplexed by sethera, lethera, hovera, and covera. No doubt sethera contains the root syllable of sex, or Greek Et, but the others seem mere jargon. One wonders how the sounds were distinguished : tethera and all the others, if shouted from a distance, would lead to the utmost confusion. . . . . Although it may seem irrelevant, there is a point of numerical etymology to which I should like to invite attention. In all the Indo-Germanic languages there is a curious similarity between the number nine and the adjective new. Novem and novus in Latin, neun and neu in German, are the most pointed illustrations ; but the resemblance will he found to run through the whole group. Is it a mere coincidence, or can it have anything to do with what may be called the New Departure, which takes place when Ten has been reached ? I have never seen this point raised, and should be glad if some fellow student of philology could enlighten me.—I am, Sir, &c., Dublin. EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON, M.A.
Previous page
