Page:The Works of John Locke - 1823 - vol 01.djvu/281

Ch. 16. language, or for which he hath names, though not perhaps of more. For the several simple modes of numbers, being in our minds but so many combinations of units, which have no variety, nor are capable of any other difference but more or less, names or marks for each distinct combination seem more necessary than in any other sort of ideas. For without such names or marks we can hardly well make use of numbers in reckoning, especially where the combination is made up of any great multitude of units; which put together without a name or mark, to distinguish that precise collection, will hardly be kept from being a heap in confusion.

§ 6. This I think to be the reason why some Americans I have spoken with (who were otherwise of quick and rational parts enough), could not, as we do, by any means count to one thousand, nor had any distinct idea of that number, though they could reckon very well to twenty; because their language being scanty, and accommodated only to the few necessaries of a needy simple life, unacquainted either with trade or mathematics, had no words in it to stand for one thousand; so that when they were discoursed with of those great numbers, they would show the hairs of their head to express a great multitude which they could not number; which inability, I suppose, proceeded from their want of names. The Tououpinambos had no names for numbers above five; any number beyond that they made out by showing their fingers, and the fingers of others who were present. And I doubt not but we ourselves might distinctly number in words a great deal farther than we usually do, would we find out but some fit denomination to signify them by; whereas in the way we take now to name them by millions of millions of millions, &c. it is hard to go beyond eighteen, or at most four and