The Numeral System of Old English: Tyne TIG Hund TIG

Chapter II
The numeral system of Old English
The general introduction to cardinal numerals and numeral systems presented

in Chapter I provides a basis for our language-particular description of the
numeral system of Old English. This description will comprise Chapters II and
III. Although the perspective will not be primarily cross-linguistic in these
parts, a comparison of Old English forms and corresponding structures in
other languages will of course be drawn whenever it seems appropriate.
Moreover, this and the next chapter will contain detailed analyses of those
features of the Old English numeral system which are typologically rare and,
therefore, particularly interesting to look at from a more general linguistic
point of view. The most prominent of these are, as briefly mentioned in the
Introduction, the overrunning sequence of multiples of ‘10’, i.e. the method of
counting beyond the second base with expressions of the type ‘ten-ty’,
‘eleven-ty’, twelve-ty’, which will be discussed in detail in §§ II.4.3.3, II.5,
and II.7.2.1, or the typologically uncommon morphological break between
‘60’ and ‘70’ in the marker for the serialised multiplicand ‘× 10’, which we
will discuss in detail in §§ II.4.3.2 and II.7.2.2.
In addition to the descriptive parts of this chapter, some of the points raised
in the previous chapter will be resumed in the following. For instance, our
typology of variant forms proposed in § I.5.3 will not only be applied to the
system of Old English, but will also find additional support in another feature
that does not exist in Present-day English or in other modern European lan-
guages: in addition to the respective affixes -TYNE ‘+ 10’ (cf. § II.4.2) and -TIG
/ HUND-__-TIG for ‘× 10’ (cf. § II.4.3), which correspond functionally to their
respective Present-day English counterparts -teen and -ty, a similar functional
distribution can be identified for the different expressions for ‘100’ (cf.
§ II.5.2).
Moreover, Chapters II and III will also introduce additional aspects of nu-
meral systems, which are cross-linguistically highly relevant but have not been
included into the theoretical discussion of Chapter I. These are, for instance,
phenomena like the ‘Packing Strategy’ (§ II.4.3.3) or ‘1-deletion’ (§ III.1.1).
The present Chapter II will deal mainly with the individual numeral forms.
The earlier parts of this chapter, in which the simple forms will be presented
(§§ II.1–II.4.1), will out of necessity be predominantly descriptive. In the later
sections, especially in §§ II.4.2–II.6, the general morphological principles of
the formation of complex numerals in Old English will be described and ana-
Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Authenticated | 187.113.74.136
Download Date | 5/5/13 6:45 PM
Overview: the simple forms 73
lysed according to the framework developed in Chapter I. The remaining sec-

tions of this Chapter II will complement the descriptions up to § II.6 in two
different ways. In § II.7, the predominantly synchronic data presented up to
that point will be embedded into a diachronic context by briefly sketching the
development of the Old English numeral system. The second addition to the
data presented in §§ II.1–6 will be a short overview of the morphological for-
mation of ordinal numerals in § II.8. Both § II.7 and § II.8 may have slightly
parenthetical character but both prepare later discussions by providing infor-
mation which will become important for explaining phenomena presented in
later chapters.
A more detailed discussion of the internal structure of complex numerals
will follow in Chapter III. The general idea is that the basic principles of com-
position, which are quite unambiguously morphological processes, will be part
of Chapter II, whereas Chapter III will deal with aspects of the internal syntax
of Old English cardinal numeral constructions. Yet, as briefly discussed in
§ I.3.6, much of the analysis of complex numerals is located in a grey area
between morphology and syntax. A proper distinction between the two do-
mains of linguistic description will, therefore, not always be possible and,
more importantly, not useful either. Moreover, as many phenomena and proc-
esses presented here are situated in the interface between syntax and morphol-
ogy, some of the aspects discussed in this chapter will be resumed or analysed
in a more detailed way in Chapter III.
II.1 Overview: the simple forms
The atomic numerals of Old English constitute the series of lowest valued
numerals up to the first (i.e. to the lowest valued) base without any idiosyncra-
sies disturbing the sequence. In Old English, there are nine atomic numerals
for the numerical values from ‘1’ to ‘9’ and the lowest base of the numeral
system represents the numerical value ‘10’. In this respect, Old English does
not differ typologically from any other Germanic language and from most
other languages with a decimal numeral system. Higher base numerals usually
represent powers of the lowest base numeral. This is the case in Old English,
too, where the second and the third power of ‘10’ are represented by base nu-
merals. As theoretically discussed in § I.3.1, atoms and bases can only be de-
scribed by simply listing the relevant forms because their shapes are arbitrary
and mono-morphemic. The following simple lexical entries are the nine

74 The numeral system of Old English
atomic numerals (Figure 3) and the three base numerals (Figure 4) of Old Eng-
lish.13
‘1’ ‘2’ ‘3’ ‘4’ ‘5’ ‘6’ ‘7’ ‘8’ ‘9’
AN TWA ÞREO FEOWER FIF SYX SEOFON EAHTA NIGON
Figure 3. Atomic numerals of Old English
‘101’ ‘102’ 103’
TYN HUND(RED) ÞUSEND

HUNDTEONTIG
Figure 4. Base numerals of Old English
Generally, any numeral valued higher than the lowest base is expressed as a
complex numeral unless it is itself a base. In the Germanic languages, how-
ever, the expressions for the two numerical values subsequent to the base ‘10’
– i.e. ‘11’ and ‘12’ – are, analysed synchronically, simple and arbitrary forms
in the same way as atomic and base numerals. However, because they are
neither bases nor atoms, they constitute an idiosyncrasy. In § I.5.2, we catego-
rised expressions of this kind as Type 1a (cf. (1.8)). Consequently, just like
atoms and bases in Figures 3 and 4 above, the two expressions can only be
described by listing them; cf. Figure 5. See further § II.3 below.
‘11’ ‘12’
ENDLEOFAN TWELF
Figure 5. Old English expressions for ‘11’ and ‘12’
These lists in Figures 3 – 5 show the unmarked Classical West Saxon forms. It
should, however, be borne in mind that, for many of these expressions, there is
a considerable variation of actually attested forms. This is caused by many
factors such as different scribal conventions, phonological changes during the
Old English period and, in most of the cases, dialectal differences. Such dif-
13 See note 3 in § I.3.1.

Overview: the simple forms 75
ferences cannot be dealt with in detail here and they will be taken into consid-
eration only in relevant cases. I take the forms listed in Figures 3 – 5 as the
default forms on which the following discussion will be based, being aware
that this is a simplification of what we understand the linguistic reality in Old
English times to be.
II.2 The atoms
II.2.1 The numerical value ‘1’
A discussion of the forms of OE AN ‘1’ as a numeral in the strict sense is diffi-

cult, perhaps impossible. AN is used with a wide range of semantic and func-
tional nuances, of which the strictly numerical sense – i.e. the specification of
the cardinality ‘1’ – and the use as a genuine indefinite marker constitute the
two extremes. While the morphosyntactic behaviour of AN, if unambiguously
used as a numeral, generally corresponds to that of the numerals ‘2’ and ‘3’,
other, more pronominal uses allow a wider range of morphosyntactic proper-
ties displaying correspondences with those of both adjectives and pronouns. In
particular uses, for instance, a distinction between weak and strong adjective
inflection is made and there are also examples of plural inflection.
To scrutinise the range of attested functional implications of AN and the re-
spective morphosyntactic properties would by far exceed the scope of this
study. Since a clear distinction between a numerical and a determiner use of
AN is generally difficult, if not impossible, to draw, all we can say here is that
the more the specification of the cardinality ‘1’ is implied by a particular use
of AN, the more likely its inflection is to be restricted to the paradigm of the
strong adjectives. Weak forms of AN are generally not used as consistently as
those of genuine adjectives. However, the more AN is used in a particular case
solely to mark indefiniteness, the more likely it is that the weak forms will be
employed. If used in the sense of ‘sole, exclusive, only’, the weak form for the
nominative masculine ANA predominates, and a consistent assignment of a
Case or Gender value by the modified NP, i.e. the use of weak forms other
than that of the nominative masculine is rare. As a frequentative adverb, the
strong genitive singular masculine form ANES is used in the sense ‘once’.14 An
overview of the inflectional forms is given in Tables 8 and 9. Of these forms,
14 A detailed and useful examination of the various uses of AN has been provided by
SÜSSKAND (1935), RISSANEN (1967), MITCHELL (1985 I: 208–216, §§ 523–547) and, less
comprehensively, by RISSANEN (1972) and (1997), finally also in DOE, s.v. “ān”.

the variant /'enn@/ of the masculine accusative forms is limited to the Anglian
varieties.
Table 8. Strong forms of AN Table 9. Weak forms of AN
M N F M N F
NOM ān NOM āna āne āne

GEN ānes ānes ānre GEN ānan
DAT ānum ānum ānre DAT ānan
ānne, ænne, ACC ānan
ACC ān āne
enne
INS ¢ne, āne
The most common forms for ‘2’ are TWEGEN (/'twe;j@n/), TWA and TU. All of
these are nominative and accusative forms. Genitive forms are TWEG(R )A
(/'twej(r)a/), dative forms are TWAM or TWÆM; cf. Table 10. An arithmetic al-
lomorph is TWEN-, which is used if ‘2’ is a multiplier of ‘10’, i.e. in TWENTIG
‘20’ (cf. §§ I.5.3.1 and I.6.3.5 for its Present-day English equivalent). Finally,
there is a frequentative form TUWA ‘twice’. For ordinal forms see § II.8.2 be-
low.
Table 10. Inflectional paradigm of TWA ‘2’
M N F
NOM twegen twa, tu twa

GEN twegra, twega
DAT twam, twæm
ACC twegen twa, tu twa
A few remarks will be necessary on the distribution of the nominative/-

accusative forms. While TWEGEN is generally the form used when masculine

The atoms 77
nouns are quantified and TWA the one used for feminine nouns, the uses of TWA
and TU overlap when it comes to the quantification of neuter nouns. In poetry,
the distinction between TU for the neuter and TWA for the feminine nouns
seems to be kept clearly. If TWA in a poetic text quantifies a non-feminine
noun, it is generally used when the referent is a couple as in (2.1) or when
there are two quantified nouns of different grammatical Gender, as in (2.2)
and (2.3).15 In the few instances in which this does not apply, the numeral does
not immediately precede the quantified noun.16
(2.1) GenAB 840 (KRAPP 1931: 28): Hwurfon hie ba twa, togengdon gnorngende
oon þone grenan weald
They both [i.e. Adam and Eve] left, departing with lament into the green for-
est.
hwurf-on hie ba twa
leave\PST-PL PPRN:NOM.PL both(NOM) two(NOM)
(2.2) MCharm 2 36 (DOBBIE 1942: 120, 36): Fille and finule, felamihtigu twa, þa
wyrte gesceop witig drihten, halig on heofonum, þa he hongode; […]
The wise Lord, holy in heaven, created these herbs, thyme and fennel, the
powerful two.
fille and finule fealmihtig-u twa
thyme( F) and fennel( M) very powerful-NOM.PL two(NOM)
15 In (2.3) it is remarkable that the adjective CEALD ‘cold’ has a feminine ending. This implies
that, while the form TWA is employed because the quantified NP is ambiguous with respect
to its grammatical Gender (wæter(N) ‘water’ and eorðe(F) ‘earth’), the use of the otherwise
feminine TWA as a form unmarked for Gender controls the (feminine) Gender value of the
adjective.
16 At this point of the discussion, I will disregard syntactic differences in the way the numeral
quantifies the referent. They will be in the focus in Chapter IV. In (2.1)–(2.3), for instance,
the numeral never immediately precedes the quantified noun. For an in-depth analysis of
constructions of this kind cf. § IV.3.2.

(2.3) Met 20.75 (KRAPP 1932b: 179, 76): Wæter and eorðe wæstmas bringað; þa
sint on gecynde cealda ba twa, […].
Water and land bring forth the fruits; both are cold by their nature;
wæter and eorðe wæstmas bring-að þa
water(N) and land(F) fruit(M)-ACC.PL bring\PRS-3PL DEM:NOM.PL
sint on gecynd-e cealda

be(PRS.3PL) PREP kind-DAT.SG cold-NOM.PL.F
ba twa
both(NOM) two(NOM)
In a similar way, the use of TU as an exclusively neuter numeral can expand in

poetic texts into contexts in which the referent set consists of two persons
(regardless of their sex); cf. (2.4) and (2.5). Again, in deviating instances the
numeral does not immediately precede the noun. In (2.6), for instance, the
referent is specified by the masculine noun heahengel ‘archangel’ (line 751).
(2.4) GenAB 2780 (KRAPP 1931: 83): Þa seo wyrd gewearð þæt þæt wif geseah for
Abrahame Ismael plegan, ðær hie æt swæsendum sæton bu tu, halig on hige,
[…]
Then it happened that the woman saw Ismael playing before Abraham as they
were both [i.e. Hagar and Abraham] sitting mild-heartedly together at supper,
[…]
hie æt swæsend-um sæt-on
PPRN :NOM.PL PREP dinner-DAT.PL sit\PST- PST.3PL
bu tu
both(NOM) two(NOM)
(2.5) Rid 63 4 (MUIR 2000: 363, 5): Hwilum mec on cofan cysseð muþe tillic esne,
þær wit tu beoþ, […]
The good servant sometimes kisses me with his mouth in the chamber where
there are the two of us, […]
þær wit tu beoþ
there(REL) PPRN(NOM.2DU) two(NOM) be(PRS.3PL)

The atoms 79
(2.6) El 751-3 (KRAPP 1932a: 87, 753): “Halig is se halga heahengla god, weoroda
wealdend! Is ðæs wuldres ful heofun ond eorðe ond eall heahmægen, tire
getacnod.” Syndon tu on þam, sigorcynn on swegle, þe man seraphin be
naman hateð.
Holy is the God of the holy archangels, the Lord of the hosts. Heaven and earth
are full of glory, and all his mighty power is clearly proclaimed. – There are
two among them in heaven, a victorious kind, whom we call by the name
Seraphim.
syndon tu
be:PRS.3PL two(NOM)
Both TWA and (less frequently) TU can be used in the phrase on twa ‘asunder’
(for which cf. § IV.3.2.2). TWEGEN, by contrast, is used in poetry only if it
quantifies one masculine noun.
In prose, TWEGEN remains the form used exclusively for the quantification
of masculine nouns. If compared with TWA and TU, TWEGEN clearly has a
marked character. First, it hardly ever occurs as an atomic addend in complex
numerals. Second, whenever the Gender value of the quantified noun is am-
biguous, either of the other two forms, TU or TWA, is used, but never TWEGEN.
The marked use of TWEGEN can be explained by its etymology: the form is
apparently originally bi-morphemic; of the two elements, only the first is de-
rived from the proto-Germanic paradigm of the numeral ‘2’.17
In prose, TU and TWA are generally distributed along diachronic lines rather
than according to Case/Gender values or types of referents. The type TU is
completely absent in all typical representatives of Classical West Saxon, such
as Ælfrician texts, Byrhtferth’s Manual, Wulfstanian texts, and the Benedic-
tine Rule. On the other hand, both forms are used in the earlier Alfredian
texts18 with the relative frequency of TU in Early West Saxon being clearly
17 The origin of the second element is disputed; it may go back to a pronominal form in proto-
Germanic, i.e. *yeno-, which survives in the modern (though archaic) form yon (cf. SIEVERS
1885: 495, n. 1; HOLTHAUSEN 1888: 372; PROKOSCH 1939: 273, § 93.4 and 286, § 99). In
later contributions, a distributive function (rather than pronominal) of /-jen-/ has been sug-
gested: SEEBOLD (1968: 433) compares the formation with Old Church Slavic dъvojьnъ
‘double’ and trojьnъ ‘triple’, while L ASS (1994: 209–210) refers to Classical Latin bini
‘two each’, terni ‘three each’.
18 Here and in the following, I refer to the group of texts assumed to have been produced
under the influence or by instigation of King Alfred’s reign, independent of the degree of
the king’s personal involvement as translator or author. These texts are comprised in vari-
ous sources provided by the DOE-project under the Cameron-number ‘B 9’. Hence, the
term ‘Alfredian’ is employed as a convenient cover term in spite of the fact that it has long
been assumed that Alfred was not the author (in a narrow sense of the term) of some of the

higher than in the corpus as a whole.19 The fact that – according to the prefer-
ences of the respective texts or periods – both types can be used as addends in
compound numerals indicates that, diachronically, the form TWA replaces TU
as the default expression for the numerical value ‘2’.
The forms for ÞREO ‘3’ are shown in Table 11. The most frequent nomina-
tive/accusative masculine form is ÞRY (/'θri;/), which is also the Classical West
Saxon form. ÞRI and, particularly in early texts, ÞRIE (/'θri;@/) are also com-
mon. The genitive is ÞREORA, the dative ÞRIM, spelled 〈þrim〉 or 〈þrym〉.
Table 11. Inflectional paradigm of ÞREO ‘3’
M N F
NOM þrȳ, þrī(e) þreo þreo

GEN þreora
DAT þrim, þrym
ACC þrȳ, þrī(e) þreo þreo
In Anglian texts, the feminine and the neuter forms ÞREO are also used for the
masculine Gender; i.e. there is no form of the type ÞRIE / ÞRI / ÞRY in a north-
ern text (cf. example (4.81)b and fn. 50 in § IV.7). This type is the default
expression for the numerical value ‘3’ in Old English. Not only is the type
ÞREO used almost exclusively as the addend ‘3 +’ in compound numerals (as
in ÞREO-TYNE ‘3 + 10’), but the genitive forms, occasional forms of the dative,
and the frequentative numeral are also modelled after ÞREO. Additionally,
there is also a frequentative form for the numerical value ‘3’, which is ÞRIWA
‘thrice’.
texts (but cf. VON MENGDEN 2006a: 235, fn. 10) and in spite of the fact that some of the
relevant texts show more Mercian features than Early West Saxon ones.
19 Moreover, in those Alfredian texts that are preserved only in twelfth-century manuscripts
(Soliloquii; Alcuin’s De virtutibus et vitiis), TU is not attested at all but TWA is. Another indi-
cator of the preference for TU in early documents can be found by comparing the various
versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: in the earliest copy, the Parker Chronicle (ms.
CCCC 173 – the relevant entries are written around AD 900), the relative frequency of 〈tu〉
and 〈twa〉 is 9 : 4. All other versions use TWA almost throughout.

The atoms 81
II.2.4 The atomic values from ‘4’ to ‘9’
The numerals from ‘4’ onwards were inflected according to the nominal
i-stems. Most instances of inflected numerals in Early and Classical West
Saxon still reflect the forms of this paradigm. In the eleventh century and even
more so in post-Conquest Old English, inflectional endings from the conso-
nantal stems became more frequent (cf. §§ IV.2.1, IV.3.1 and IV.5.2.2). The
use of the i-stem-endings is phonologically relevant in so far as most of the
numerals in Old English must have been affected by i-umlaut, which can be
accounted for only by the regular use of inflected forms at a pre-historic stage.
In West Saxon, there is a tendency for the numerals from ‘4’ onwards to
show Case distinction only if the numeral does not immediately precede the
quantified noun. In such cases, the numerals employ the respective endings of
the i-stems, i.e. nominative/accusative -e., genitive -a, and dative -um. This is
likely to apply for Kentish too, but the evidence in Kentish texts is too scarce
to warrant any definite statements. In any case, even in West Saxon, this must
be taken as a tendency rather than a rule; cf. e.g. the impressive list of counter-
examples provided by STILES (1986a: 9–11) for the numeral FEOWER alone.
In the Northumbrian glosses, numerals are more likely to show inflection
but with a more ambiguous marking of syntactic relations. The smaller degree
of consistency in the employment of particular Case forms and the generally
higher relative frequency of inflected forms in Northumbrian may simply be
explained by the fact that the main documents are interlinear glosses in which
the inflectional behaviour of an Old English numeral may follow the Latin
model rather than the constraints of the vernacular usage. The most commonly
used Case endings of numerals in the Northumbrian glosses and in the Mer-
cian Rushworth 1 are -a, -o, and -u for the nominative/accusative. The suffixes
-a for the genitive and -um for the dative occur rarely.
The expressions for ‘4’ and ‘5’ do not show considerable variation. ‘4’ is
expressed as FEOWER (/'fe;ower/) with minor spelling variants in some north-
ern documents. ‘5’ is very consistently expressed as FIF (/'fi;f/). For SYX ‘6’,
several spellings, 〈siex〉, 〈six〉, and 〈syx〉, are common. The most frequent form
for ‘7’ is SEOFON although the spelling both in the root and in the final syllable
varies to a considerable degree. A greater variation of forms is attested for ‘8’.
While the most common form, EAHTA, is limited to West Saxon and Kentish,
the northern varieties use ÆHTA and, occasionally, ÆHTOWE. All these types
vary in spelling. ‘9’ is expressed as NIGON (/'niγon, -@n/) again with varying
representations of both vowels.

II.3 The expressions for ‘11’ and ‘12’
While the numerical value ‘12’ is expressed as TWELF very consistently across
diachronic and diatopic varieties of Old English, the different dialects of Old
English use different, though related forms for ENDLEOFAN ‘11’. The most
frequent written forms in West Saxon are 〈endlufan〉 and 〈endleofan〉 – with
variation in the representation of the vowels of the final and penultimate sylla-
ble – the Northumbrian form is 〈ællef(n)-〉, the Mercian and Kentish use æn-
dle(o)fan.
Both ENDLEOFAN and TWELF are idiosyncratic forms (cf. §§ I.5.2 and II.1).
The fact that the system employs the numerical value ‘10’ as its smallest and
thus fundamental base would require the expressions of the decade following
‘10’ to be expressed as additions with ‘10’ and hence as complex expressions.
Yet, while the expressions from ‘13’ to ‘19’ are in fact expressed as additions
(as shown below § II.4.2), the two forms appear as simple, non-analysable,
expressions.
This analysis holds only from a synchronic perspective. If, however, we
take a look at the etymologies of ENDLEOFAN and TWELF, we can see that they
used to be bi-morphemic in the proto-Germanic period, i.e. *aina-lif- ‘1 re-
maining [beyond 10]’ and *twa-lif- ‘2 remaining [beyond 10]’ (cf. § II.7.1.2).
The diachronic analysis of their respective forms reveals that they used to be
irregular even at a stage when their morpheme structure was still transparent
because, although complex, it nevertheless deviated from the subsequent ele-
ments from ‘13’ onwards (‘x remaining [beyond 10]’ vs. ‘x + 10’). According
to the typology of irregularities postulated in § I.5 above (cf. (1.8)), the two
expressions belong synchronically to Type 1a, whereas diachronically they
belong to Type 1b.
Whenever idiosyncratic simple forms interfere with a regularly systematic
sequence of numerals, it is possible, if not likely that compound forms are
historically underlying. This observation supports the claim made in § I.5.2,
i.e. that the existence of idiosyncratic simple forms does not contradict the
generally systematic character of a numeral system. In spite of the explanatory
force of a diachronic analysis of idiosyncratic forms, an isolated, i.e. non-
comparative, analysis of one particular numeral system requires a synchronic
analysis of the system and its idiosyncrasies. Therefore, for a grammatical
description of Old English, the expressions ENDLEOFAN and TWELF should be
considered as idiosyncratic simple forms.

The first base ‘10’ 83
II.4 The first base ‘10’
II.4.1 The simple forms for ‘10’
The attested simple forms for the numerical value ‘10’ vary considerably in
terms both of spelling and geographical distribution. Token-wise, the most
frequently attested spelling is 〈tyn〉 (for /ti;n/), which is predominant in Classi-
cal West Saxon texts. Besides this, West Saxon also uses 〈ti(e)n〉 and a diph-
thongised type 〈tion / teon〉, the latter being also attested in Kentish. The main
type in Northumbrian is 〈tea〉. Diatopically, the most widespread variant is
〈ten〉. It is predominant in Mercian, but it also occurs as a minor variant in late
West Saxon, Kentish, and Northumbrian.
II.4.2 The teens
Except for the higher bases, all numerals of Old English from the numerical
value ‘13’ onwards are complex numerals. Arithmetically, the expressions
from ‘13’ to ‘19’ are formed as additions with the base as augend and the
atomic numerals forming the sequence of addends (from which excluded are
the values ‘2’ and ‘3’ in this particular section). The element -TYNE (〈-tyne〉
with the variants, particularly in earlier documents 〈-tine〉 and 〈-tiene〉, and
occasionally 〈-tene〉 in Kentish) is used as a suffix attached to the atomic nu-
merals in the sequence from ‘13’ to ‘19’ and represents the augend ‘+ 10’ (cf.
§ I.5.3.2).
Diachronically, the relevant expressions for the numerical values from ‘13’
to ‘19’ consist of the respective atomic numeral and an inflected form of the
base numeral TYN with the inflectional suffix *-i > -e; cf. e.g. BRUNNER
(1960–62 II: 90). This shows that -TYNE is derived from the simple form for
‘10’. Since the use of inflection in the relevant expressions has been reduced
almost completely in Old English, the originally inflected form -TYN-E became
fossilised. This allowed for the paradigmatic isolation of the sequence -TYN-E
‘+ 10’ from TYN ‘10’ and for its concomitant reinterpretation as a suffix encod-
ing the arithmetic function ‘augend’, i.e. ‘+ 10’. In other words, -TYNE is the
result of a grammaticalisation process by which a simple form comes to be
used as a suffix which does not represent the mere numerical value ‘10’ as its
source lexeme does, but a specific arithmetic function of it, i.e. ‘+ 10’; cf. VON
MENGDEN (2008: 303–304). The distinction that emerged between TYN and
-TYNE also allows the operator ‘+’ to not be overtly expressed because the type

of arithmetic operation is inherent in the use of the formally distinct affix

-TYNE ‘+ 10’.
The resulting complex forms for the sequence of teens are shown in Fig-
ure 6.
‘13’ ‘14’ ‘15’ ‘16’ ‘17’ ‘18’ ‘19’
3 + 10 4 + 10 5 + 10 6 + 10 7 + 10 8 + 10 9 + 10
þreo-tyne feower-tyne fif-tyne syx-tyne seofon-tyne eahta-tyne nigon- tyne
Figure 6. Old English expressions for the teens
II.4.3 The multiples of ‘10’
II.4.3.1 The expressions up to ‘60’
Only nine elements of the second decade were described in the preceding sec-
tion. The tenth element of the second decade is expressed as the second multi-
ple of the base ‘10’, i.e. TWEN-TIG ‘2 × 10’. Accordingly, all multiples of ‘10’
are expressed by an atomic numeral (or a variant of it) as a multiplier and an
element representing ‘10 as a multiplicand’ or ‘× 10’. Up to ‘60’, this element
is the suffix -TIG; cf. Figure 7.
‘10’ ‘20’ ‘30’ ‘40’ ‘50’ ‘60’
2 × 10 3 × 10 4 × 10 5 × 10 6 × 10
-tyne twen - tig þri - tig feower-tig fif - tig syx - tig
Figure 7. Old English expressions for the serialised augends from ‘10’ to ‘60’
The sequence of atoms is used cyclically as addends to each multiple of ‘10’.

However, opposite to the constituent order in the corresponding formation
type in Present-day English, the atomic addends precede the augends, as
shown in Figure 8. The following decades are arranged accordingly: the ter-
minal element of any preceding decade is used as augend for the sequence of
atomic numerals, i.e. an and twen-tig ‘1 + (2 × 10)’, twa and twen-tig
‘2 + (2 × 10)’, þreo and twen-tig ‘3 + (2 × 10)’, etc. In contrast to the second

decade – and also in contrast to the Present-day English usage (cf. § II.7.3
below) – the operator ‘+’ needs to be overtly expressed from ‘21’ onwards.
Since the element representing ‘10’, the suffix -TIG, already encodes the func-
tion ‘multiplicand’ (i.e. ‘×’, cf. below), the conjunction AND links the atomic
numeral with the multiple of the base thus encoding the operator ‘+’ in the
addition with the multiple of ‘10’. The final element of the third decade is the
expression for the third multiple of ‘10’, i.e. ÞRI-TIG ‘3 × 10’, which in turn
serves as an augend in the fourth decade, i.e. an and þritig ‘1 + (3 × 10)’ etc.;
cf. Figure 8:
‘21’ […] ‘32’ […] ‘67’
1 + 20 […] 2 + 30 […] 7 + 60
1 + (2 × 10) […] 2 + (3 × 10) […] 7 + (6 × 10)
an and twen - tig […] twa and þri - tig […] seofon and syx - tig
Figure 8. Atomic numerals as addends to the multiples of the base
The element TWEN- in TWEN-TIG ‘2 × 10’ is an allomorph of TWA representing

the multiplier ‘2’ (cf. § I.5.3.1). Apart from its phonological form /'twen-/,
there are a couple of further aspects which support the assumption that the
allomorph TWEN- is a shortened form of TWEGEN. Important evidence in sup-
port of this analysis is that there are a few instances of an unshortened
twœgentig in northern documents. Other phonological arguments indicating a
connection between TWEN-, TWEGEN, and the genitive TWEG(R)A are discussed
by VAN HELTEN (1905/06: 117–118), HORN (1923: 106–107, § 103) and, with
a slightly different line of argument, SEEBOLD (1968: 430–432). However, the
clearest evidence in this case is certainly the correspondence in the diatopic
distribution of the graphemic representation of the vowels, which alternates
between 〈-a-〉 and 〈-æ-〉. In geographical distribution of the two graphemes,
20
TWEN- corresponds with TWEGEN and TWEG(R)A but differs from TWÆM .
20 Some scholars, most recently ROSS/BERNS (1992: 613, § 15.1.22), have suggested that the
element TWEN- is derived from the dative form TWÆM. However, not only is it semantically
implausible that the multiplier in the expression ‘2 × 10’ should be a (former) dative form,
the typologically uncommon construction would also require an explanation of why dative
forms are unattested in the other expressions for multiples of ‘10’.

‘3’ as a multiplier in the sequence of multiples of ‘10’ is also represented

by an allomorph, i.e. ÞRI- in ÞRI-TIG ‘3 × 10’ (cf. Figure 7), whereas the ele-
ments ‘4’, ‘5’, and ‘6’ if used as multipliers of the base do not differ from the
corresponding simple forms as listed in Figure 3 in § II.1.
The suffix -TIG represents the base ‘10’ as multiplicand. Thus the operator
‘×’ is not overtly expressed but is encoded by the suffix -TIG ‘× 10’; cf. our
analysis of PDE -TY above in § I.5.3.2. If we analyse the suffix -TIG in a way
parallel to -TYNE ‘+ 10’ in the previous section, the consequence would be that
-TIG is likewise the result of a grammaticalisation process. Thus -TIG (and,
accordingly, PDE -ty) would have to be derived from some simple expression
for ‘10’, out of which a functional variant must have developed. Unfortu-
nately, direct evidence for this grammaticalisation process does not exist, be-
cause the process, and with it the etymological relation between a simple ex-
pression for ‘10’ and a suffix for ‘× 10’, dates back to a time long before the
earliest written documentation. Generally however, it is undisputed that the
affixes representing the multiplicand ‘× 10’ in the Germanic languages go
back to an Indo-European form *deḱ-ṃ-, itself based on the root *deḱ- ‘10’.
For some of the attested forms of -TIG and its cognates in other Germanic lan-
guages, the proto-Germanic suffix *-teγu is held to be underlying; cf. the very
comprehensive discussion in SZEMERÉNYI (1960: 27–44 and 148–65). How-
ever, the most popular explanation of this form among Indo-Europeanists is
that this suffix is derived from an u-stem noun and that the predecessor of the
suffix -TIG originally used to denotes ‘decade’; cf. e.g. SZEMERÉNYI
(1960: 27–44); BAMMESBERGER (1986); VOYLES (1987: 493–495); JUSTUS
(1996: 46).
There are a few points which I would put forward against the semantic in-
terpretation underlying this etymology. The formation of multiples of a base
by a compound consisting of an atomic numeral plus some abstract noun de-
noting ‘decade, set of ten’ would be typologically exceptional. The idea of
complex numerals formed after the pattern ‘second decade’, ‘third decade’,
etc., is highly improbable and without a parallel in natural languages; cf.
GREENBERG (1978: particularly 258). Of course, the observation that numeral
systems across natural languages overwhelmingly draw on arithmetic opera-
tions when forming complex numeral expressions does not rule out the exis-
tence of exceptional cases. It is, however, untenable to postulate a cross-
linguistically unattested type when reconstructing an undocumented linguistic
stage or development. Moreover, to employ the notion ‘decade’ as a constitu-
tive element of complex numerals would imply that the speakers are to some
degree conscious of the recursive and sequential arrangement of numerals at a
stage when more complex expressions are only about to develop, because the

notion ‘decade’ already entails an arrangement in sets. Both the evidence from
the reconstruction of proto-Indo-European and cross-linguistic data of numeral
systems in natural languages clearly suggest that the expressions for the multi-
ples of ‘10’ were originally mere compounds consisting of the respective sim-
ple forms of the atoms and of the simple form for ‘10’, with both representing
a multiplication ‘n × 10’.21 (Cf. LUJÁN MARTÍNEZ (1999b: 203) as quoted in
the general introduction.)
While these statements concern the underlying semantics of the compound
of the reconstructed forms, they are not primarily relevant for the morphology
of the respective expressions. In other words, the fact that, for instance, Proto-
Germanic *-teγu is a nominal u-stem, does not imply that its semantic content
must necessarily differ greatly from that of an unmarked form of a cardinal
‘10’. The fact that the respective form deviates morphologically from the sim-
ple expression for the base ‘10’ in that it employs inflectional endings of the
u-stems may simply reflect a strategy to mark the paradigmatically separate
use of the serialised multiplicand ‘× 10’ as against the simple cardinal ‘10’.
That this is not a mere hypothetical thought but a plausible scenario can be
seen from the process of paradigmatic isolation of the suffix -TYNE ‘+ 10’ from
the simple form TYN ‘10’ (cf. § II.4.2). In other words, from all we know about
the pre-historic stages of Germanic and Indo-European, it is feasible to assume
that the suffix -TIG ‘× 10’ emerged in a grammaticalisation process very simi-
lar to the one which brought about -TYNE ‘+ 10’.
II.4.3.2 The expressions for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’
While the numeral system of Old English as described so far is structurally

identical to the numeral systems of most of today’s Germanic languages, the
expressions for the subsequent multiples of ‘10’ are morphologically diverse.
The expressions for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’ have a different element representing
the multiplicand ‘× 10’. Whereas the use of the respective atomic root as mul-
tipliers is retained, the suffix -TIG, which has so far served to indicate the mul-
tiplicand ‘× 10’, is now replaced by the circumfix HUND-__-TIG. The resulting
expressions are those shown in Figure 9:
21 As far as I was able to find out, the theory that the multiples of ‘10’ are derived from a
sequence ‘second decade’, ‘third decade’, etc. originates in a mid-19th-century article by
Adolf HOLTZMANN; cf. B RUGMANN (1890: 13). Reading the relevant passage, the theory be-
comes even less likely as HOLTZMANN (1856: 218) claims that the representatives of the at-
oms in these expressions are not genuine ordinals but older variants of them (“die nämli-
chen Ordinalzahlen in einer älteren Gestalt”).

‘70’ ‘80’ ‘90’
7 × 10 8 × 10 9 × 10
hund - seofon - tig hund - eahta - tig hund - nigon - tig
Figure 9. Old English expressions for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’
The atomic multipliers in these formations generally correspond with the de-
fault atomic forms, except in Northumbrian where the multiplier ‘9’ is repre-
sented by the allomorph -NEON-. Hence, we have Northum-
brian HUND-NEON-TIG but non-Northumbrian HUND-NIGON-TIG ‘90’.
The atomic addends are appended to the circumfixed expressions in the
same way as they are to the lower valued suffixed expressions. See Figure 10:
‘75’ […] ‘86’
5 + 70 […] 6 + 80
5 + (7 × 10) […] 6 + (8 × 10)
fif and hund - seofon - tig […] syx and hund - eahta - tig
Figure 10. Atomic numerals as addends to the multiples of the base
In grammatical descriptions of Old English, this type of formation is tradition-

ally described as a prefixation of the previous augends formed with -TIG. In
other words, it is commonly assumed that an additional prefix is added to the
type of expressions in Figure 7. Accordingly, the expressions in Figure 9 have
been analysed as consisting of three elements constituting the structure
HUND-PREFIX + {atomic root} + -TIGSUFFIX; cf. e.g. CAMPBELL (1959: 284, § 686);
BRUNNER (1965: 254–255, § 326); LASS (1994: 213).
However, if the element HUND- were a morpheme independent of the ele-
ment -TIG, one would have to determine to what degree its semantic content or
its grammatical function is independent of the other two elements. It is true
that, by analogy with the lower valued augends, we could analyse the latter
two elements (i.e. {atomic root} + -TIG) as representing the structure ‘n × 10’.
Superficially, this parallelism suggests that HUND- is an independent addition
to the structure attested in the lower valued expressions of Figure 7. This

alone, however, does not imply an independent meaning or function of the

alleged morpheme HUND-. In fact, in these constructions, it is impossible to
attribute either a lexical meaning (a numerical value) or a grammatical func-
tion (an arithmetic operation or some derivational function) to the element
HUND-.
The only candidate for an independent numerical value expressed by an al-
leged prefix HUND- would be the homophonous base numeral HUND ‘100’ (for
which see below § II.5.1). The numerical value ‘100’, however, cannot be
involved in the formation of any expression for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’ for arith-
metic reasons. Given this, the respective constituents {atomic root} + -TIG in
structures shown in Figure 9 suffice to denote ‘n × 10’. And given further that
the attested forms are clearly cardinal numerals and not any other numeral
category – ordinals or multiplicatives (which would make the assumption of
some derivational morpheme plausible) – it is impossible to determine an
independent meaning for the alleged prefix HUND-. I would therefore argue
that HUND-__-TIG is one single discontinuous variant of -TIG and should be
analysed as a circumfix denoting ‘× 10’. Since the element HUND- – with a
meaning clearly different from the numerical value ‘100’ – is attested only in
combination with the element -TIG and only affixed to the root of an atomic
numeral in expressions for multiples of ‘10’, we have met all necessary crite-
ria for postulating a circumfix. Thus the circumfix HUND-__-TIG represents the
base ‘10’ as a serialised multiplicand to the atomic numerals ‘7’, ‘8’, and ‘9’
(and, as we will see below in the next subsection, also to the numerical values
‘10’, ‘11’, and ‘12’).
Circumfixation as a morphological process, although rare, does occur in
the Germanic languages. For instance, the past participle in Modern German is
marked by the circumfix GE-__-T (or GE-__-EN for strong verbs) attached to
the verbal stem, a morphological form which should be analysed in exactly the
same way. In both cases, the objection may be raised that the final element can
occur alone: OE -TIG as suffix to the lower valued multiplicands and Ger-
man -T as suffix for the past participle of those weak verbs with a lexically
motivated prefix to the verbal root. In both cases, however, the paradigmatic
distribution of suffix and circumfix is subject to clear morphological or lexical
constraints: German -T as a participial marker is limited to prefixed verbs and
OE -TIG is limited to the numerals below ‘70’. Old English also uses both
circumfixes and suffixes to mark participles, but the distribution between the
two participial markers is not as clear-cut as in German. Moreover, in either
case, the initial element cannot occur in the same function or with the same

meaning without the corresponding second element; cf. for instance the dis-
cussions in BAUER (2003: 28, § 3.1.3) and HALL (2000: 542b–543a).22
It seems clear that the suffix -TIG and the circumfix HUND-__-TIG stand in
an allomorphic relation to each other. This is particularly interesting with re-
spect to a point we discussed in § I.5.3. There, we analysed the Present-day
English suffix -TY as a functional variant of the simple base numeral TEN while
postulating a distinction between such functional variants (§ I.5.3.2) and allo-
morphic variants of the type PDE FIVE vs. FIF- (§ I.5.3.1). The situation in Old
English now provides us with evidence supporting our theoretical categorisa-
tion of the two different variant types in numeral systems. The Old English
affix -TIG functionally (and etymologically; see below) corresponds with the
Present-day English suffix -TY. It is, therefore, a grammaticalised morpheme
which – according to our framework outlined in § I.5.3 – is a functional vari-
ant of the simple numeral TYN. It may occur in two allomorphic (complemen-
tarily distributed) realisations: the suffix -TIG and the circumfix HUND-__-TIG.
Accordingly, Old English -TIG, because of its functional relation with TYN and
because of the two different allomorphs by which it is realised, would be diffi-
cult to account for if we grouped the two classes of numeral variants proposed
in § I.5.3 into one category.
II.4.3.3 The expressions for ‘100’, ‘110’, and ‘120’
The highest numerical value that can be expressed in a numeral system as we

have described it thus far is ‘99’. The base multiplied by the nine atomic nu-
merals results in the highest possible augend HUND-NIGON-TIG representing the
multiplication ‘9 × 10’. If we add the highest possible addend ‘9’ we arrive at
the numerical value ‘(9 × 10) + 9’, i.e. NIGON AND HUND-NIGON-TIG ‘99’. In
order to express higher numerical values , different strategies are generally
conceivable. The cross-linguistically most common strategy would be to em-
ploy the expression for the second base as an augend for the numerical values
22 It is irrelevant for this analysis that the forms in question are often represented as two dis-
tinct graphic units in the manuscripts, i.e. as 〈hund seofontig〉, 〈hund eahtatig〉 etc. The
spelling conventions in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts do not generally correspond with our
modern intuition of word and morpheme boundaries. For instance, the element GE - in past
participle forms is often spelled separately from the rest of the word, but this has never in-
duced anyone to analyse it as a free morpheme. Cf. in this context, for example, the separa-
tion in the spelling 〈hundnigon teoða〉 ‘190th’ in the interlinear gloss to the Benedictine Rule
(BenRGl 9.38.4; cf. LOGEMAN 1888: 38) where it is the postposed part of a circumfix which
is graphically separated, whereas the preposed element is graphically attached to the root.

from ‘100’ onwards. But it is likewise conceivable to simply continue the

series of multipliers of the base and use an expression for ‘10 × 10’ as the next
higher augend in the sequence.
In fact, the Old English lexeme HUNDTEONTIG ‘100’ is formed according to
the latter pattern. The sequence of augends used in the previous decades (cf.
Figures 9 and 10 above) is continued and thus the next higher augend is an
equivalent formation, HUND-TEON-TIG ‘10 × 10’. The multiplier ‘10’ is ex-
pressed by -TEON-, an allomorph of TYN. Likewise, the expressions represent-
ing the numerical values ‘110’ and ‘120’ are formed in the same way:
HUND-ENDLEF-TIG ‘11 × 10’ (with the allomorph -ENDLEF- for ENDLEOFAN
‘11’) and HUND-TWELF-TIG ‘12 × 10’ respectively. The sequence of multipliers
to the base ‘10’ is extended beyond the range of the nine atomic numerals.
Thus the three expressions for ‘100’, ‘110’, and ‘120’ are formed according to
the same pattern as the expressions for ‘70’, ‘80’, ‘90’ as shown in Figure 11.
(More examples and a discussion of the frequency of HUNDENDLEFTIG and
HUNDTWELFTIG will follow below in § II.5.3).
‘100’ ‘110’ ‘120’
10 × 10 11 × 10 12 × 10
hund - teon - tig hund - endlef - tig hund - twelf - tig
Figure 11. Old English expressions for ‘100’, ‘110’, and ‘120’
The use of these expressions as augends corresponds to the pattern shown in

Figure 10; cf. examples (2.7)–(2.9):
(2.7) GenAB 1227 (KRAPP 1931: 39): Wintra hæfde twa and hundteontig þa seo tid
gewearð þæt se eorl ingan æðele cennan, sunu and dohtor.
He was 102 years old when the time had come that the hero began to father
nobles, a son and a daughter.
twa and hund-teon-tig
2 + CIRC-(10 × 10)

(2.8) Ch 1444 12 (BIRCH 1885–1899: II, # 619, 282, 13–14): Ðonnæ is þær nu irfæs
þæs þæs stranga wintær læfæd hæfð: nigon ealð hriðru and feower and hund-
ændlæftig ealdra swina and fiftig wæþæra […]
Then, there is the bequest which the strong winter has left: nine old cattle and
114 elderly swine and 50 ram […]
feower and hund-ændlæf-tig
4 + CIRC-(11 × 10)
(2.9) Bede 5B 17.460.1 (MILLER 1890–1898: 460): On þa sylfan tid se ylca papa þa
Agatthón gesomnade sinoð on Rome byrig fif & hund-twelftig byssceopa wið
þam gedwolmannum, […]
At the same time, the same pope Agathos then assembled a synod [of] 125
bishops against the heretics in the town of Rome.
fif & hund-twelf-tig
5 + CIRC-(12 × 10)
From the point of view of Present-day English and of other European lan-
guages, the construction type in this section of the counting sequence is rather
unusual. Decimal numeral systems usually employ a second base for ‘100’
once the sequence of atomic multipliers of the base is used up. In fact, the
arithmetic operation behind the formation pattern of the expressions in Fig-
ure 11 defies a general tendency in numeral systems of natural languages.
Cross-linguistically, there is a strong tendency for the numerical value of a
serialised multiplicand to generally exceed the numerical value of the respec-
tive multiplier. This constraint is entailed in what HURFORD refers to as
“Packing Strategy”. Rephrasing the Packing Strategy in the terminology em-
ployed here, it says that, of two immediate constituents of a complex numeral,
the one containing the multiplier must be valued lower than the one containing
the serialised multiplicand and the one containing the addend must be valued
lower than the one containing the serialised augend (cf. HURFORD 1975: 67–
80; 1987: 242–252). Accordingly, subsequent to the numerical value ‘99’, the
base ‘10’ cannot be multiplied by an expression valued ‘10’ or higher. This
requires the introduction of a new base for the numerical value ‘100’. “The
[packing] strategy states, essentially, that the sister constituent of a NUMBER
must have the highest possible value, that is, the highest value that a constitu-
ent of its category can have less than or equal to the value of the immediately

dominating node” (HURFORD 1975: 67–68).23 What HURFORD’s Packing

Strategy predicts theoretically, is formulated as universal generalisations by
GREENBERG (1978: 266 and 271; G 18 and G 23) although GREENBERG, men-
tioning a counterexample (see below), does not assume an absolute universal.
Hence, the Old English system is in this respect a counterexample to the abso-
lute universal status of HURFORD’s proposal.
Thus the type of expressions like OE HUND-TEON-TIG, HUND-ENDLEF-TIG,
HUND-TWELF-TIG, representing a multiplication ‘n × 10’ (where n ≥ 10) is
typologically unusual. Instead, most numeral systems introduce a second base
– representing the second power of the first base (i.e. ‘10² = 100’). With re-
spect to the arithmetic operation underlying the Old English expressions
HUNDTEONTIG, HUNDENDLEFTIG, and HUNDTWELFTIG , the series of multipliers
‘overruns’ the expected second base.
Although cross-linguistically rare, there are examples of overrunning se-
quences in numeral systems in a number of genetically unrelated languages.
GREENBERG states that the phenomenon can only occur if the relevant expres-
sions continue a sequence of lower valued – i.e. ‘regular’ – multipliers: “If a
serialized multiplicand is a factor in some product in which the multiplier is
larger than the multiplicand, it is also a factor in some product in which it is
smaller than [the] multiplicand.” (GREENBERG 1978: 271; G 23). The expres-
sion for ‘100’ in Keres (isolate / Keresiouan; classification disputed), g’-ats
aua g’-ats, transparently represents the multiplication ‘10 × 10’ and continues
the formation type of the preceding multiples of ‘10’ (as in Keres
tame-aua g’-ats ‘5 × 10’); cf. GATSCHET (1876: 112–115); KLUGE
(1939: 468).24 In Polabian (West-Slavic, extinct), the second decade overruns
the second multiple of 10. The respective expressions for ‘18’, ‘19’, and ‘20’
in Polabian are visĕm-nocti ‘8 + 10’, divą(t)-nocti ‘9 + 10’, and disą-nocti
’10 + 10’ or ‘ten-teen’ (cf. COMRIE 1999: 89–90; for similar examples from
West Slavic cf. COMRIE 1992: 723, § 16.0.7). Hence, this peculiarity is, albeit
rare, a typologically possible phenomenon.
Some diachronic aspects of the overrunning sequence and of the circum-
fixed expressions in Old English and particularly their loss in post-Old English
times will be addressed briefly below in §§ II.7.2.1 and II.7.2.2, respectively.
23 NUMBER is a category of HURFORD’s (1975) theory which comprises any simple or complex
constituent that can be combined with a base.
24 GREENBERG (1978: 271) states that Keres, just like Old English, continues the overrunning
sequence up until ‘120’, i.e. expressed as ‘(10 + 2) × 10’. However, I could not find any
Keres data containing expressions for ‘110’ or ‘120’.

At this point, we continue with our description of the elements and the struc-
ture of the Old English numeral system.
II.5 The second base ‘100’
II.5.1 The expressions for ‘100’
What is, from a cross-linguistic perspective, similarly peculiar about the nu-
meral system of Old English is that, in spite of, or in addition to,
HUNDTEONTIG and the corresponding formations, there are two other expres-
sions for the numerical value ‘100’ used as a genuine second base: HUND and
HUNDRED (cf. above Figure 4 in § II.1). For expressing the numerical value
‘100’ and for the arithmetic operations employing the base ‘100’, there are
actually two different strategies in Old English. One strategy is that described
in the previous subsection (§ II.4.3.3) – the continuation of the sequence of
multiples of the first base ‘10’. The other strategy is the cross-linguistically
more common type employed in the modern Germanic languages and many
other European languages. It involves the introduction of a new base numeral
for the second power of ‘10’ with either of the synonymous expressions HUND
and HUNDRED. Hence, up to the numerical value ‘129’, the expressions
HUNDTEONTIG, HUNDENDLEFTIG, and HUNDTWELFTIG are the predominant (but
not the exclusive) forms for the augends. Only from the numerical value ‘130’
onwards are the numerals formed exclusively with the base ‘100’ as a serial-
ised augend.
The base is used as serialised augend to which a lower valued constituent
representing the addend can be attached. The entire sequence of expressions
from ‘1’ to ‘99’ is cyclically re-used as addends to the second base ‘100’ –
thus exposing a second level in the recursion of the numeral system. Within
such a construction, the element containing the second base precedes the
lower valued elements. Both constituents are linked by the conjunction AND as
an overt expression for the operator ‘+’. The general structure of the expres-
sions containing the second base is displayed in Figure 12. For the optional
use of AN as multiplier for HUND(RED) cf. below § III.1.1.

The second base ‘100’ 95
‘147’
100 + 47
(1 ×) 100 7 + 40
(1 ×) 100 7 4 × 10
(an) hund and seofon and feower - tig
Figure 12a. Complex numeral expressions with two bases
‘789’
700 + 89
7 × 100 9 + 80
7 × 100 9 8 × 10
seofon hund and nigon and hund - eahta - tig
Figure 12b. Complex numeral expressions with two bases
In other words, once the series of 99 addends is used up, any base is multiplied
by the next higher valued atomic numeral, i.e. TWA HUND(RED), ÞREO
HUND(RED), etc. Again, the operator ‘×’ is not overtly expressed, but it is im-
plied by the particular morpheme employed for the respective base.
The fact that HUNDRED and HUND are two synonymous expressions used
indiscriminately is difficult to explain. Functionally, there does not seem to be
any difference, that is, there is no arithmetically or syntactically conditioned
distributional pattern between the two expressions. What may perhaps be ob-
served is that the expression HUNDRED becomes more frequent in texts of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries although HUND is still in use in post-Conquest
Old English. HUNDRED prevails over HUND in Middle English: in the early
Middle English period HUND still occurs sporadically, but after the thirteenth
century it is no longer in use; cf. MED IV, 1030b-4b, s.v. “hund card.num”
and the subsequent entries.

HUNDRED appears to be some compound form based on HUND. The second

element is etymologically related to attested words for counting, as e.g.
Gothic ga-raþ-jan ‘to count’. The motivation for this formation is obscure as it
seems redundant to develop a second expression for the second base ‘100’. A
popular explanation used to be that HUNDRED was originally formed in order
to distinguish the Great Hundred ‘120’ from the decimal hundred, but the evi-
dence brought forth in favour of this explanation does not withstand closer
scrutiny; cf. VON MENGDEN (2005, 2006b) and the discussion in § III.2.2 be-
low.
II.5.2 The distribution of the expressions for ‘100’
The mere existence of three different systemic expressions for the numerical
value ‘100’ appears to be counterevidential to the claim we raised in §§ I.2.2
and I.4.1 that any one numerical value is represented by exactly one systemic
numeral. In order to maintain our claim, we need to identify some distribu-
tional pattern of the expressions HUNDTEONTIG, HUND, and HUNDRED in ac-
cordance with our categorisation of variant forms postulated in § I.5. The most
plausible assumption would be that such a distribution is based on the various
arithmetic contexts in which the numerical value ‘100’ can occur. In order to
identify such a pattern, we will first summarise the logically possible arithme-
tic contexts in which an element representing the numerical value ‘100’ may
occur in a decimal numeral system (Table 12). Then we will look at whether
and, if so, how the instances of the three expressions are distributed over these
arithmetic uses (Tables 13 and 14). Let us first categorise the logically possi-
ble arithmetic contexts of ‘100’ in Table 12.
The use of ‘100’ – or of an element containing ‘100’ – as an addend to the
third base ‘1,000’ is rare and hence disregarded in Table 12. It is represented
in columns 4 and 5 of Tables 13 and 14 below displaying the distribution of
the expressions for ‘100’ over the relevant arithmetic functions. 25
25 In Tables 13, 14, and 15 – as well as in 19 below in § III.1.1 –, b stands for a higher valued
base (i.e. actually for ‘1,000’), n and m for any atomic or any lower valued complex nu-
meral. The data are based on the OEC). Consequently, my count only includes those forms
attested in the relevant base manuscripts of each Old English text as captured by the OEC.
However, whenever an OEC record indicates that the printed edition deviates from the
manuscript reading (as is occasionally the case, especially in Byrhtferth’s Manual where the
editors generally prefer the “correct” figures to the manuscript reading; cf. BAKER/LAPIDGE
1995: cxxv), I opted for the manuscript reading as the linguistically relevant data.
In my count I have included only the most common spellings of the respective lexemes,
i.e. 〈hund〉, 〈hundred〉, and 〈hundteontig〉. Variant spellings do occur in all three cases but

Table 12. Possible arithmetic context for the base ‘100’
columns in
function of the corresponding corresponding Tables 13
base ‘100’ arithmetic operation numerical values and 14
below
exact numerical
― ‘100’ 1
value ‘100’
serialised ‘200’, ‘300’, …,
‘n + 100’ 6
multiplicand ‘900’
serialised augend ‘101’ – ‘199’,
(including multi- ‘(m × 100) + n’ ‘201’ – ‘299’, …, 2, 7
ples of ‘100’) ‘901’ – ‘999’
multiplier of the
third base (includ-
‘100,000’ –
ing complex ele- ‘[(m × 100) + n] × 1,000’ 3, 8
‘999,999’
ments containing
‘100’)
Apparently, the usage of the three forms for ‘100’ differs between those
arithmetic operations in which ‘100’ is used as a multiplicand – shown in col-
umns 6, 7, and 8 – and the other possible uses of an element for ‘100’. If we
combine the columns of Tables 13 and 14 according to this distinction we get
the figures shown in Table 15. It should be noted that the use of the multiplier
AN ‘1’ in AN HUND and AN HUNDRED actually turns out to be irrelevant in this
context, since AN HUND and AN HUNDRED cannot possibly be used as multipli-
cands. The instances of AN HUND and AN HUNDRED are, therefore, not included
in Table 15. The use of AN HUND and AN HUNDRED will be considered in a
different context below (cf. § III.1.1).
are comparatively rare. I have not distinguished whether complex forms are spelled as one
or as several words in the manuscripts, i.e. 〈an hund〉 is not distinguished from 〈anhund〉,
and 〈hund teontig〉 not from 〈hundteontig〉 (〈anhundred〉 does not occur in the OEC).

Table 13. Distribution of the expressions for ‘100’ by arithmetic conditions (absolute figures)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
multiplicand
multiplicand
multiplicand
multiplier &
multiplier
addend &
augend &
augend
addend
augend
alone
100 100 + n 100 × b b + 100 b + 100 + n n × 100 (n × 100) + m (n × 100) × b

hund
(without 23 4 4 0 0 342 232 23 628
an hund)
an hund 27 29 8 2 4 — — — 70
hundred
(without 7 0 2 0 0 49 33 0 91
an hundred)
an hundred 12 1 0 0 0 — — — 13
hundteontig 41 22 10 0 1 1 3 0 78
∑ 110 56 24 2 5 392 268 23 880

Table 14. Distribution of the expressions for ‘100’ by arithmetic conditions

(percentage)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
multiplicand
multiplicand
multiplicand
multiplier &
multiplier
addend &
augend &
% ∑
augend
addend
augend
alone
hund 3.7 0.6 0.6 0 0 54.5 36.9 3.7 100

(without an hund)
an hund 38.6 41.4 11.4 2.9 5.7 — — — 100
hundred 7.7 0 2.2 0 0 53.8 36.3 0 100
(without an hundred)
an hundred 92.3 7.7 0 0 0 — — — 100
hundteontig 52.6 28.2 12.8 0 1.3 1.3 3.8 0 100
Table 15. Distribution of the expressions for ‘100’ with regard to their use as multi-
plicand
other multiplicand
arithmetic
functions ‘n × 100’
Σ
columns in Tables 13
1–5 6–8
and 14
31 597 628
hund
4.9 % 95.0 % 100 %
9 82 91
hundred
9.9 % 90.1 % 100 %
74 4 78
hundteontig
94.9 % 5.1 % 100 %
The result is now even more obvious: although none of the forms is used ex-
clusively in either of the two contexts, the figures show a clear predominance
of particular arithmetic operations for each of the different expressions for
‘100’. The simple expressions HUND and HUNDRED are basically used as mul-
tiplicands. In 95.0 % of all the instances of HUND, the form is used as a multi-
plicand. The predominant use of HUNDRED as a multiplicand is almost as clear
with 90.1 % of the total number of instances. HUNDRED seems to be used

slightly more freely than HUND, but the figures do not indicate any striking
differences in use between HUND and HUNDRED.
In any case, in 94.9 % of its instances, the form HUNDTEONTIG is used in
arithmetic functions other than that of a multiplicand. The simple forms HUND
and HUNDRED usually do not occur in these contexts (only 3.7 % and 7.7 %,
respectively, of the total number of instances). In accordance with our theo-
retical considerations in Chapter I (cf. § I.4), it follows that HUNDTEONTIG is
the default expression for ‘100’ in the Old English counting sequence. This
assumption is confirmed by the continuation of that passage in Ælfric’s
Grammar, the first part of which we have already quoted in the previous chap-
ter as (1.7). In (2.10) the sequence of multiples of ‘100’ in Old English and
Medieval Latin is attested in a context-free list. The expression for ‘100’ here
is hundteontig but not hund or hundred.
(2.10) ÆGram 281.15–20 (ZUPITZA 1880 [2001]: 281 – my bold type): uiginti (XX)
twentig. uiginti unum (XXI) an and twentig and swa forð. triginta (XXX)
þrittig. quadraginta (XL) feowertig. quinquaginta ( L) fiftig. sexaginta (LX)
syxtig. septuaginta (LXX) hundseofontig. octoginta (LXXX) hundeahtatig.
nonaginta (XC) hundnigontig. centum (C) hundteontig.
The default character of HUNDTEONTIG as opposed to HUND(RED) is further-

more confirmed by the fact that the ordinal ‘100th’ is exclusively expressed by
HUNDTEONTIGOÞA, i.e. the ordinal suffix can only be attached to
HUNDTEONTIG but never to HUND or HUNDRED; cf. § II.8.3. A similar phe-
nomenon is attested in a closely related language: in Old High German zehan-
zug ‘10 × 10’ is the default expression for ‘100’, whereas if the value ‘100’ is
a multiplicand in a complex formation it is mostly expressed by hunt; cf.
BRAUNE/REIFFENSTEIN (2004: 237, § 274).
Although rather uncommon in European languages, there are parallels to
the situation in Old English. There are languages which have a default expres-
sion for a base but lexically different expressions for the same value if used as
a multiplicand: according to CHARNEY (1993: 160–161) the default expression
for ‘10’ in Comanche (Uto-Aztecan) is tokwe. This numeral stands for the
value ‘10’ if used outside an arithmetic operation. Within more complex
forms, the expression used for ‘10’ is sìmi-matì= which consists of sìmì ‘1’
and the bound form -matì= ‘× 10’. The latter element occurs in the expressions
for ‘20’, ‘30’ etc. and sìmì-matì=, therefore, would be morphologically equiva-
lent to an English numeral *one-ty.
As a final point in this context, it should be noted that Tables 13 to 15 show
a much higher frequency of HUND(RED) than of HUNDTEONTIG. In this case,

token frequency cannot be taken as an indicator of the default vs. marked

status of two variants. As our discussion has shown, HUNDTEONTIG is never-
theless the unmarked expression for the numerical value ‘100’. The higher
number of occurrences for HUND and HUNDRED is simply due to the fact that
arithmetically, the numerical value ‘100’ is generally employed much more
often as a multiplicand than for the exact numerical value ‘100’ or in other
arithmetic contexts.
If we now compare the expressions for the second base ‘100’ with those for
the first base ‘10’ with respect to the possible arithmetic functions in which a
base numeral can occur, we will find that the expressions for the second base
are distributed according to a pattern similar to that of the first base: the arith-
metic functions of HUNDTEONTIG parallel those of TYN and -TYNE, while the
arithmetic functions in which HUND and HUNDRED are employed correspond to
those of -TIG and HUND-__-TIG; cf. Table 16.
Table 16. Distribution of the variant forms for ‘10’ and ‘100’ with regard to their
arithmetic contexts
‘10’ ‘100’
default lexeme / exact numerical value TYN HUNDTEONTIG
augend (but not multiplicand) -TYNE HUNDTEONTIG
multiplicand -TIG, HUND-__-TIG HUND, HUNDRED
In accordance with the different functions of the relevant elements for ‘10’ (cf.
§ II.4.3.), we may say that the use of the forms HUND and HUNDRED – as op-
posed to HUNDTEONTIG – implies that the numerical value ‘100’ is used as
multiplicand. It should be conceded though that the distribution of the forms
for ‘100’ as multiplicands and those for ‘100’ in other arithmetic contexts is
not as consistent as that of the respective variants for ‘10’. The tendency,
however, is more than obvious. From this observation we may also conclude
that, whenever the base ‘100’ is multiplied by an atomic numeral, the operator
‘×’ does not need to be overtly expressed because the use of HUND or
HUNDRED generally suffices to encode that the numerical value ‘100’ is used
as a multiplicand. In contrast to our findings with respect to HUNDTEONTIG, the
forms HUND and HUNDRED are used in free variation with each other; cf. above
§ II.5.1.

II.5.3 The section from ‘110’ to ‘129’
If we say that HUNDTEONTIG is used predominantly in arithmetic contexts

other than that of a multiplicand, we have left one aspect out of consideration.
The use of HUNDTEONTIG as an augend cannot be taken as a genuinely base-
like use as long as the respective addends are not complex numerals. In other
words, if the scope of HUNDTEONTIG as augend were restricted to the numeri-
cal values from ‘101’ to ‘109’, it would simply perform functions typical of
any multiple of ‘10’. However, as the examples (2.11)–(2.14) show,
HUNDTEONTIG can also be used as an augend in the entire sequence up to
‘199’.
(2.11) Mart 5 Se 25, A.12 (KOTZOR 1981: 219) – ms. Julius A.x.; ms. CCCC 196
reads: hundteontigum and feowertynum: Æfter hundteontegum daga ond XIIII
þæs ðe he of his mynstre ferde, he geleorde on Burgenda mægðe Linguna
ceastre.
114 days after he had left the monastery, he passed away in the town of Lyons
in Burgundy.
hund-teon-teg-um dag-a and XIIII
CIRC-(10 × 10)-DAT.PL day-GEN.PL + 14
(2.12) ÆLet 4 (Sigeweard Z) 302 (CRAWFORD 1922 [1969]: 28, 311): & se Ioseph
leofode on þam lande mærlice hundteontig geara & tin to eacan, & seo boc
Genesis geendað þus her.
And Joseph lived famously in that land for 110 years and thus the book Gene-
sis ends here.
hund-teon-tig gear-a & tin to eacan
CIRC-(10 × 10) year-GEN.PL + 10 thereto
(2.13) Bede 1 5.32.11 (MILLER 1890–1898: 32): Ða wæs ymb hundteontig wintra &
nigan & hundeahtatig wintra fram Drihtnes menniscnysse, þæt Seuerus
casere, se wæs æffrica cynnes, of þære byrig ðe Lepti hatte, se wæs
seofonteogeða fram Agusto, þæt he rice onfeng, & þæt hæfde seofontyne gear.
It was 189 years after the incarnation of the Lord that the emperor Severus,
who was of African descent from the town that was called Leptis, and who was
the seventeenth after Augustus, came to power which he held for 17 years.
hund-teon-tig wintr-a & nigan & hund-eahta-tig
CIRC-(10 × 10) winter-GEN.PL + 9 + CIRC-(8 × 10)

(2.14) LS 4 130 (RYPINS 1924: 74, 12): Þæt wæs eaht & feower þusenda manna &
hundteontig & fiftyne.
There were about 4,115 men.
feower þusend-a mann-a & hund-teon-tig & fif-tyne
4 × 1,000-PL man-GEN.PL + CIRC-(10 × 10) + (5+10)
At the same time, the expressions HUNDENDLEFTIG ‘110’ and

HUNDTWELFTIG ‘120’ can be employed as augends for the subsequent decades
in the same way as all the lower valued multiples of ‘10’ are used; cf. (2.15).
(2.15) ÆHomM 14 6 (A SSMANN 1889 [1964]: 92): Hundtwelftig scira he soðlice

hæfde and seofon scira, swa swa us secgað bec, on his anwealde ealle him
gewylde
Verily, as the books tell us, he held 127 provinces under his control, com-
pletely subdued to him.
hund-twelf-tig scir-a he soðlice hæfde
CIRC-(12 × 10) district-GEN.PL he truly have:3 SG.PST
and seofon scir-a
+ 7 district-GEN.PL
This means that for the section from ‘110’ up to ‘129’ two different formation
types compete: one employing an expression for ‘100’ as augend, resulting in
the structure ‘100 + n’, and one with HUNDENDLEFTIG ‘110’ and
HUNDTWELFTIG ‘120’ as decadic augends, as described above in § II.1.3.3, i.e.
representing the structures ‘(11 × 10) + n’ and ‘(12 × 10) + n’, respectively.
Again, we seem to have a problem: according to what we have said about
systemic and non-systemic expressions (§§ I.2.2 and I.4.1), there should theo-
retically be only one default formation type for any one numerical value. This
claim would, of course, have to apply to the section from ‘110’ up to ‘129’ as
well.
Our difficulty at this point is, in fact, due to the limited amount of data.
There are simply not enough instances of expressions for the numerical values
from ‘101’ to ‘129’ in Old English that would allow for reliable statements on
the frequency of the relevant constructions. The evidence is too scarce to de-
termine unambiguously which of the two types is the default expression.
There are only five instances of HUNDENDLEFTIG ‘110’ in the entire corpus, of
which one is an ordinal. Of the four remaining instances, three are attested in
twelfth-century charter copies. By contrast, there are ten instances of complex

numerals expressing numerical values from ‘110’ to ‘119’, five of which em-
ploy (AN) HUND and another five HUNDTEONTIG. Bearing in mind that the
number of instances of ‘110’ do not constitute a sufficiently large sample, we
may tentatively conjecture that HUNDENDLEFTIG as an augend seems to have
been on the decline if compared to constructions using the second base ‘100’ –
whether (AN) HUND or HUNDTEONTIG – as an augend.
As for the use of ‘120’, the figures in Table 17 show that the use of the cir-
cumfixed form HUNDTWELFTIG ‘120’ prevails over those compounds that ex-
press the numerical value ‘120’ as an addition with the base ‘100’.26
Table 17. Distribution of the expressions for ‘120’ by arithmetic conditions

alone augend multiplier
∑
‘120’ ‘121’ – ‘129’ ‘120,000’ ff.
hund-twelftig 32 2 3 37
hund twentig 3 0 0 3
anhund & twentig 5 1 0 6
anhundred & twentig 0 1 0 1
hundteontig & twentig 1 1 0 2
∑ 41 5 3 49
However, it has been possible to show that the circumfixed lexeme

HUNDTEONTIG is, in contrast to HUND and HUNDRED, the default expression for
the numerical value ‘100’ unless there is a clearly defined arithmetic con-
straint. With respect to the possible expressions for ‘110’ and ‘120’, this might
suggest that, for ‘110 + n’ and ‘120 + n’, there is also a predominance of the
circumfixed expressions over those constructions employing ‘100’ as an
augend although, of course, we do not have a definite proof of their default
character.
26 The use of ‘120’ as addend (e.g. in ‘1,120’) is not attested. Given the distribution indicated
in Table 17, it is remarkable that the 16 ordinals for ‘120th’ attested in the OEC are without
exception formed on -TWENTIGEÞAN, i.e. with ‘100’ as augend.

The third base ‘1,000’ 105
II.6 The third base ‘1,000’
The set of possible multipliers to the second base ‘100’ is restricted to the
sequence of nine atomic numerals. Thus the highest numerical value that can
theoretically be expressed by means of the two bases ‘10’ and ‘100’ is ‘999’.
The structure of the highest possible expression in a system thus far described
represents the arithmetic operation ‘(9 × 100) + (9 × 10) + 9’. To express the
next higher numerical value, i.e. ‘1,000’, the introduction of a third base is
necessary. The third base of the Old English numeral system, representing the
third power of 10, is expressed by the simple form ÞUSEND.
The formation patterns of the relevant compound numerals and the arith-
metic operations involved are basically the same as for the numerical values
below ‘1,000’. Like the two lower valued bases, ÞUSEND is used as a serialised
augend to the sequence of the 999 lower valued numerals. The resulting addi-
tions express the numerical values from ‘1,001’ to ‘1,999’. When the sequence
of addends is used up, the base is multiplied by a preceding atomic numeral,
i.e. TWA ÞUSEND ‘2 × 1,000’, ÞREO ÞUSEND ‘3 × 1,000’ etc., which are again
used as serialised augends; cf. (2.16)–(2.18).
(2.16) ByrM 1 4.2 30 (BAKER/LAPIDGE 1995: 232–234) – as (2.16) above in § II.1.5:

Ðæt forme þusend (þæt ys seo forme yld þises middaneardes) stod of þusend
wintrum & syx hund wintrum & syx & fiftigum wintrum æfter þære
soðfæstnysse þe þa Iudeisce witan heoldon, […]
The first thousand (that is, the first age of this world) consisted of 1,656 years
according to the verity which Jewish scholars observed […] (transl.
BAKER/LAPIDGE 1995: 233)
of þusend wintr-um & syx hund wintr-um
PREP 1,000 winter-DAT.PL + 6 × 100 winter-DAT.PL
& syx & fif-tig-um wintr-um
+ 6 + (5 × 10)-DAT.PL winter-DAT.PL
(2.17) ByrM 2.3 61 (BAKER/LAPIDGE 1995: 108): Se dæg hæfð ostenta an þusend &
feower hundred & feowertig.
A day has 1,440 ostents.
an þusend & feower hundred & feower -tig
1 × 1,000 + 4 × 100 + (4 × 10)

(2.18) Notes 26.3 16 (NAPIER 1889: 9): Þa wæs fram frymðe ealles a urnen oþþæs
temples geweorc. þæt sindon feower þusenda wintra & an hund wintra &
seofan & syxtig wintra.
Then from the beginning of everything to the construction of the Temple
passed by: that are 4,167 years.
feower þusend-a wintr-a & an hund wintr-a
4 × 1,000-PL winter-GEN.PL + 1 × 100 winter-GEN.PL
& seofan & syx-tig wintr-a
+ 7 + (6 × 10) winter-GEN.PL
If we describe the structure of a compound numeral comprising all three bases

as a phrase structure, we would, as a first step, simply have to add another
parent node to the structures in Figure 12 (§ II.1.4.1). Figure 13 illustrates the
structures of the numerals in (2.16) and (2.18). For an additional specification
of the constraints underlying the structures of Figures 13a and 13b cf. § III.1.1
and particularly Figure 17a.
‘1,656’
1,000 + 656
1 × 1,000 600 + 56
1 × 1,000 6 × 100 56
1 × 1,000 6 × 100 6 + 50
1 × 1,000 6 × 100 6 5 × 10
an þusend & syx hund & syx & fif-tigum
Figure 13a. Structure of a numeral containing three bases

The third base ‘1,000’ 107
‘4,167’
4,000 + 167
4 × 1,000 100 + 67
4 × 1,000 1 × 100 67
4 × 1,000 1 × 100 7 + 60
4 × 1,000 1 × 100 7 6 × 10
feower þusend & an hund & seofan & syx - tig
Figure 13b. Structure of a numeral containing three bases
The scope of the third base is – in contrast to the two lower valued bases – not
restricted to the nine atomic numerals as multipliers. A multiplier of the third
base can itself be a complex numeral. This entails that any expression out of
the sequence from ‘1’ to ‘999’ can also be used as a multiplier of ‘1,000’. This
is in accordance with the constraint that the multiplier should not exceed the
respective multiplicand (cf. § II.1.3.3). The highest possible multiplier of the
third base is therefore ‘999’.
Since ‘1,000’ is the highest base of the Old English numeral system, the
highest numerical value that can theoretically be expressed in Old English by
a systemic numeral denotes the numerical value 999,999. Or, in the sense of
GREENBERG’s first generalisation (1978: 254, G 1; cf. above § I.2.4), the limit
number L of the numeral system of Old English is ‘106’ and, accordingly the
highest expressible numerical value of the Old English numeral system is
‘999,999’. As we said in § I.2.4, alternative strategies may exist for expressing
higher numbers but these expressions are non-systemic. Expressions of this
type will be discussed in § III.3.3.
II.7 The development of the Old English numeral system
Apart from a few aspects, the previous sections have been primarily descrip-
tive and also primarily synchronic. As some of the phenomena described have
shown, a diachronic context sheds some light on some idiosyncrasies within a
system and indeed will have some explanatory force for quite a number of

phenomena. That this is particularly true for numerals and numeral systems
will be shown in detail later in § V.2.5.1. While the phenomena in the previ-
ous sections of this chapter have been presented in a systematic (or, systemic,
for that matter) order, they will now be revisited with a particular focus on
their historical development. This will not only complement much of §§ II.1–6
by looking at the data from a different, i.e. diachronic, angle, but will also
provide a crucial basis for general considerations on the word class ‘cardinal
numeral’ which will be made as a cross-linguistically oriented conclusion of
this study. This will be done first with respect to the pre-history of the Old
English numeral system (§ II.7.1), then the changes during the Old English
period will be described (§ II.7.2) and, finally, those later changes which mark
the systemic differences between Old English and the English of today will be
summarised (§ II.7.3).
II.7.1 The pre-history
II.7.1.1 The numeral system of proto-Indo-European
There is, of course, not much evidence upon which we can base definite
statements of what the numeral system was like in proto-Indo-European. To
some extent this is a problem which generally applies to all grammatical as-
pects of reconstructed stages of languages. A reconstruction can only be an
approximation of the linguistic reality of a hypothesised speech community.
Yet, if we take our knowledge of diachronic and synchronic universals of nu-
meral systems into consideration (for which cf. § I, but also GREENBERG
1978; VON MENGDEN 2008), together, of course, with the results achieved by
historical comparison and reconstruction, we will get quite a solid picture of
many aspects of the numeral system of proto-Indo-European.
In spite of the etymological difficulties that are involved in determining the
source expressions of the atomic numerals of proto-Indo-European (cf. e.g. the
discussion in LUJÁN MARTÍNEZ 1999b), one of the least debated etymologies
is that of the expression for ‘5’, *pénkwe, which is related to the concept ‘fin-
ger’ or ‘fist’; cf. e.g. SCHWARTZ (1992); LUJÁN MARTÍNEZ (1999b: 207–208).
A second important hint, probably the clearest evidence we have, is the fact
that the expressions for ‘10’ and ‘100’ are shared by all languages of the Indo-
European family, but that almost every branch has a different expression for
‘1,000’. These two points strongly suggest that, at the time of the disintegra-
tion of the individual branches of proto-Indo-European, a finger counting
method had developed into a pure decimal numeral system and that, further-

The development of the Old English numeral system 109
more, this numeral system must have been complex enough to have fully de-
veloped a second base. The numeral system of the Indo-European proto-
language, therefore, must have involved a recursive pattern including addition
and multiplication on a decimal basis (cf. §§ III.2.1 and V.2.5.1 where this
point will be resumed).
II.7.1.2 The numeral system of proto-Germanic
Comparing all the ancient Germanic languages with respect to their systemic
numerals, we will get quite a clear picture of the developmental stage of the
numeral system of proto-Germanic. Since there is a common expression for
‘1,000’ throughout Germanic but not, as we said, in the individual branches of
Indo-European, we can date the development of the third base to the time after
the separation of the Germanic languages from Indo-European but before the
time of the disintegration of the individual Germanic languages. This applies
to the idiosyncratic expressions for ‘11’ and ‘12’ in the same way. As already
mentioned, the expressions ENDLEOFAN and TWELF go back to the proto-
Germanic formations *aina-lif- ‘1 remaining [beyond 10]’ and *twa-lif- ‘2
remaining [beyond 10]’ (cf. § II.1.1.2). Remarkably, both the expression for
‘1,000’ and the formation type for ‘11’ and ‘12’ find parallels in the Baltic
languages. Balto-Slavic, being the only branch of Indo-European which shares
the expression for ‘1,000’ with Germanic (cf. Old Church Slavonic tysęšti,
Lithuanian tūkstantis), also has a formation type for the second decade in
Lithuanian which exactly parallels that of the Germanic expressions for ‘11’
and ‘12’ (cf. SEILER 1990: 200; SILHER 1995: 417, § 390; see also §§ II.3,
III.3.2 and V.2.5.1).
Some other idiosyncratic features described above are also to some extent
common to the entire Germanic branch but show some variation among the
individual Germanic languages at the time of the earliest written records. The
allomorphic variation between the multiples of ‘10’ up to and above ‘6 × 10’
(§ II.4.3.2) is very clearly attested throughout the ancient Germanic languages.
There can be no doubt that this morphological split must have developed dur-
ing the common Germanic period; cf. Table 18 in which the split between the
two allomorphs is marked by the dotted line.

Table 18. Affixes for ‘× 10’ in the ancient Germanic languages
‘100’ ‘100’
‘20’ – ‘60’ ‘70’ – ‘90’ ‘110’ – ‘120’
(default) (multiplicand)
x-taíhund,
Gothic x-tigjus x-têhund —
x-têhund
Old High German x-zug x-zō, -zug x-zō, -zug — hunt
Old Saxon x-tig (ant)-x-ta, -da hund(erod) —
Old Frisian x-tich (t)-x-tich hunderd, hundred x-tich (?)
Old English x-tig hund-x-tig hund-x-tig hund-x-tig hund(red)
Old Norse (adj.) x-tøgr x-tøgr, x-røþr x-røþr x-røþr
Old Norse x-tigi, x-tiger x tiger x tiger x-tiger ‘110’ hundraþ ‘120’, (‘100’)

The second feature which seems to have been widespread in the early varieties
of proto-Germanic is the sequence of multiples of ‘10’ overrunning the second
base (§ II.4.3.3). It is indicated in Table 18 by the boxes shaded in light grey.
Here, however, the evidence is not quite as clear. No statement is possible for
Gothic, Old High German and Old Saxon where no expressions for the nu-
merical values from ‘101’ to ‘129’ are attested. However, the existence of a
complex form for ‘100’ in Gothic and Old High German plus the lack (Gothic)
or the marked character (Old High German) of a simple form for ‘100’ in
these two languages suggests that the second base was introduced at a stage at
which a complex, but systemic expression at least for the value ‘100’ had ex-
isted. While it is therefore feasible that proto-Germanic had multiples of ‘10’
up until ‘120’, the phenomenon is attested only for Old English and, in a
slightly deviant manner, for Old Norse. It is uncertain whether tolftich
‘12 × 10’ is attested in Old Frisian, but if it existed, we have evidence for the
existence of an overrunning sequence in this closest cognate of Old English,
too.27
The emergence of the circumfix hund-__-tig as a marker for the multiples
of ‘10’ from ‘70’ onwards (§ II.4.3.2) must have developed at a later stage as
traces of it can only be found in Old English, Old Saxon and Old Frisian, i.e.
in the subgroup within the Germanic languages traditionally referred to as
‘Ingvaeonic’. The relevant forms are the expressions in the light blue shaded
boxes in Table 18. It is remarkable in this context that the suffix for the higher
multiples of ‘10’ in Gothic is bi-syllabic, which suggests that it is very likely
etymologically bi-morphemic. This allows the assumption that the two parts of
the circumfix in the West-Germanic subgroup represent the same components
as the suffix in Gothic. The exact kind of relation between the two elements
(and the resulting deviation of the two) is difficult to determine; cf. the discus-
sion about the suffix -TIG above in § II.4.3.1 and the literature referred to
there.
27 The situation in Frisian is described inconsistently in the relevant literature. KLUGE

(1913: 256) mentions the Frisian form tolftich ‘12 × 10’. So do KÖBLER (1983) and
HOLTHAUSEN/HOFMANN (1985), but perhaps they only copied from KLUGE because neither
STELLER (1928: 50–51, §§ 77–78) nor MARKEY (1981: 130) mention this form. For the data
of the other Germanic languages in their oldest stages cf. BRAUNE/EBBINGHAUS (1981: 97,
§§ 142–143) for Gothic, BRAUNE /REIFFENSTEIN (2004: 236–237, §§ 273–274) for Old High
German, GALLÉE (1910 [1993]: 235, § 259.6) for Old Saxon and NOREEN (1923: 305–306,
§§ 449–450 and 308, § 460) for Old Norse. For a more detailed list of the relevant forms in
all historical stages of the Germanic languages cf. ROSS/BERNS (1992: 602–620,
§§ 15.1.20–30). The particular use of the second base in Old Norse is discussed briefly in
VON MENGDEN (2006b: 142–143).

While the circumfix – judged at least from its frequency in the written re-
cords (cf. § II.7.2) – seems to be most stable in Old English, its Old Saxon
counterpart shows signs of heavy attrition. First, the root-preceding element
seems to be used optionally. Moreover, on the assumption that the Old English
and the Old Saxon circumfix are exactly cognate, we also observe the loss of
the initial aspiration on the continent and, less clearly evidenced, the reduction
of the vowel as suggested by the 〈-a-〉-spelling in Old Saxon ant-. In Old Fri-
sian, the loss of the first part of the circumfix is more advanced. In this lan-
guage only occasional instances with initial /t-/ in the forms (t)ach-tich ‘80’
and (t)niogen-tich ‘90’ can be found. Remnants of the circumfix however can
still be seen in Modern Frisian tachtich and Modern Dutch tachtig ‘80’, which
both have an initial alveolar stop that does not occur in acht ‘8’, the corre-
sponding atom in both Modern Dutch and Modern Frisian.
If we compare the pre-Old English stage with the situation today, the only
idiosyncrasy that has survived in all the contemporary Germanic languages is
the simple shape of eleven and twelve. We find no traces of the overrunning
expressions or of the circumfix in Middle English (but cf. fn. 28 in § II.7.2.2).
Evidently, there must have been some pressure on the circumfixed expressions
for the numerical values from ‘100’ to ‘129’ by the typologically more com-
mon and arithmetically more regular formations employing ‘100’ as an
augend. The typological drift to level out these features can also be seen by the
fact that none of them has survived in any other contemporary Germanic lan-
guage (with the exception of the initial stop in one expression of Dutch and
Frisian that we have just mentioned). These processes will be discussed in the
following section.
II.7.2 Changes during the Old English period
II.7.2.1 The loss of the overrunning section
The clearest evidence for an ongoing change is the variation in the use of
forms for the section between ‘100’ and ‘129’. In § II.5.3, we described the
way in which the two different formation types – the augends HUNDTEONTIG,
HUNDENDLEFTIG and HUNDTWELFTIG versus the use of HUND(RED) as augend
– compete with each other in the Old English period. We also pointed out that
the corpus does not provide sufficient data to determine with an absolute de-
gree of certainty which of the two types was the default construction in a cer-
tain period or variety of Old English. After all, we can see from the data pre-
sented in § II.5.3 that there is some degree of variation during the Old English

period. Given that in Middle English no circumfixed expressions of the sec-

tion from ‘100’ to ‘129’ are attested, it seems that this variation documents an
ongoing process of the levelling of the circumfixed forms in this sequence in
favour of expressions formed by the augend HUND(RED). This process of level-
ling must have been completed by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period with the
loss of the overrunning sequence.
The tendency to level out such an idiosyncrasy necessarily leads to a tem-
porary competition between HUNDTEONTIG and HUND(RED), especially in the
function as an augend in the second set of a hundred as exemplified in (2.11)–
(2.14) above (§ II.5.3). Although we have shown that the distribution of
HUNDTEONTIG and HUND (RED) was sufficiently clear with respect to their
arithmetic functions (cf. § II.5.2), example (2.19) – although certainly not
representative for the Old English usage – may show that some degree of con-
fusion could possibly arise:
(2.19) Notes26.3 7 (NAPIER 1889a: # 10; 9, 9–10): Þonne wæs fram Abrahames
acennednesse forð oð Moyses gebyrd-tidu & þara Israhela bearna gefære of
Egyptum: þæt wæs ðonne fifhund wintra & fif & hundteontig wintra.
Then, from Abraham’s birth to Moses’s birth and to the Exodus of the
Children of Israel from Egypt, there were 505 years.
fif-hund wintr-a & fif & hund-teon-tig wintr-a
(5 × 100) winter-GEN.PL + 5 + CIRC-(10 × 10) winter-GEN.PL
Literally, the numeral in this passage would represent ‘(5 × 100) + 5 +

(10 × 10)’, hence ‘605’. However, the Latin original of this passage (Chroni-
con Æthelweardi I, 1; cf. CAMPBELL 1962: 3, lines 18–19) as well as a parallel
Old English text (Notes 26.1 5; cf. FÖRSTER 1925: 196a, line 3) both show
that the number of years intended by the author of these lines is clearly ‘505’.
The fact that ‘100’ is both a serialised multiplicand and a serialised augend in
this numeral may account for the erroneous use of two expressions for ‘100’
where only one is arithmetically possible.
II.7.2.2 The loss of the circumfix
For the numerical values below ‘100’, there is, of course, no such conflict
between two types of constructions. There are six decades from ‘70’ to ‘120’
employing the circumfix HUND-__-TIG to mark the multiplicand ‘10’ and five
decades from ‘20’ to ‘60’ employing the suffix -TIG in this function. This sug-

gests that there was a fair balance in the frequency of the two allomorphs so
that the variation between the two forms can be assumed to have been rela-
tively stable. However, once the circumfixed expressions for the numerical
values ‘100’, ‘110’, and ‘120’ were on the decline (for the reasons discussed
in the previous section), the remaining circumfixed expressions
HUNDSEOFONTIG, HUNDEAHTATIG, and HUNDNIGONTIG became – both type-
and token-wise – a rather small set of morphologically deviating expressions.
After the section between ‘101’ and ‘129’ has been levelled out, one might
expect the analogy with the lower valued numerals employing the suffix -TIG
to exert a stronger pressure on the morphologically more complicated struc-
ture with the circumfix.
Thus given that the suffix -TIG has completely replaced the circumfix
HUND-__-TIG in early Middle English, it would not be surprising if a consider-
able number of forms with the suffix -TIG were attested to have existed side by
side with the circumfixed forms in the numerals for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’ in Old
English.28 There are indeed a few instances of numerals for ‘70’ and ‘80’ of
the Modern English type, i.e. using the suffix instead of the circumfix. It is
remarkable that they are evidently not used in free variation with the circum-
fixed forms. The small number of cardinal numerals for ‘70’ and ‘80’ that are
formed by the suffix -TIG instead of the circumfix HUND-__-TIG occur almost
exclusively in the Old English paraphrase of Orosius’s History, more precisely
in the section from Book III.7 to Book V. Since the Old English Orosius is
one of the earliest Old English prose texts and since the terminus ante quem
for the use of numeral forms for ‘70’ and ‘80’ without circumfix must be the
reign of King Alfred the Great (871–899), the circumfix must have been less
stable in the spoken language than the almost perfectly consistent distribution
of circumfixed and suffixed forms for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’ in the extant docu-
ments of Old English (outside the Orosius) suggests (cf. VON MENGDEN
2006a).
The most plausible scenario is this: first, the formation pattern of the ex-
pressions from ‘70’ to ‘99’ was entirely clear and there was no pressure on
this type of formation to be replaced by a more salient one. But, as the circum-
fixed expressions for ‘100’, ‘110’, and ‘120’ became increasingly obsolete (cf.
28 Of the circumfixed forms, the MED has entries for hundseventi and hundte(o)ntig only. The
instances provided by the MED are very few and for the most part attested in twelfth cen-
tury versions of Old English texts. The two instances from genuinely Middle English texts –
one each in the Trinity Homilies (hund seuenti; 9, 23, cf. MORRIS 1873: 51) and in the Prov-
erbs of Alfred (hunt-seuenti; cf. ARNGART 1955: 83, line 99, § 6) – cannot be dated much
later than 1200. Cf. MED IV, 1035a, s.vv. “hundseventi” and “hundtentig”; cf.
VON MENGDEN (2006a: 223).

§ II.7.2.1), the pressure of the analogy with the expressions for ‘20’ to ‘60’
became stronger. In the Old English texts, the type formed on HUND-__-TIG
was unquestionably the standard type for numerals from ‘70’ to ‘129’. But the
comparatively early date of the Orosius-translation and the occasional occur-
rence of weakened forms of HUND- in the tenth-century Lindisfarne ms. (unse-
ofontigum in LkHeadGl (Li) 41; cf. SKEAT 1874: 6) suggest that the gradual
replacement of the circumfixed forms by the Modern English type was set in
motion long before the transition period of the later eleventh and twelfth
centuries. In fact, the circumfixed forms are virtually gone in the early Middle
English period, while twelfth-century Old English texts still consistently attest
to them. Although the evidence is not sufficiently clear to allow definite
statements about the change from one type to the other, two important aspects
seem to point into the same direction. One of them I have just mentioned: the
clear cut in the usage between twelfth-century Old English texts and early
Middle English texts. The other is the fact that, as suggested by the evidence
of the Orosius-section, the Modern English type must have been in use to
some extent as early as the tenth century. Both pieces of evidence can be seen
as indications that the circumfixed forms may have been largely retained in
the ‘literary’ language of Old English, while at the same time the Modern
English type may have been more established in some spoken registers than
textual evidence suggests. Only the end of the Late Old English scribal tradi-
tion during the twelfth century cleared the way for the suffixed type to enter
the written texts. (See VON MENGDEN 2006a for a more detailed discussion.)
II.7.3 Later modifications of the numeral system
From the point of view of the system, no significant changes took place from
the early Middle English period onwards. The arithmetic and recursive
mechanisms were basically those of today’s numeral system after the overrun-
ning section and the circumfixed expressions had been levelled out. Two ma-
jor differences in comparison with the numeral system of Present-day English
should, however, be mentioned briefly: one concerns the internal syntax of
complex numerals, the other is a lexeme newly introduced to the system.
As shown in § II.4.3.1, the element order between the multiples of ‘10’ and
atomic addends was different from the one used today. While in Old English
‘24’ is constructed as feower and twentig throughout (cf. MITCHELL
1985 I: 219, § 555), Present-day English uses the opposite order with the
augend preceding the addend: twenty-four. After the Norman Conquest the
order addend + multiple of ‘10’ remains in use with the reverse order emerg-

ing not before the end of the Middle English period; cf. MUSTANOJA
(1960: 305). The Old English type still occurs in the literary language of the
nineteenth century. The Modern English type is probably the more transparent
construction with respect to other types of complex numerals based on addi-
tion: both in Old English and in Modern German, the higher valued constitu-
ent of a complex numeral always precedes the lower one except for the addi-
tion of atom and multiple of ‘10’ as in feower and twentig. In any case, the
higher-plus-lower order is cross-linguistically by far the more frequent order
between atom and multiple of ‘10’. This can be explained by the cognitive
processing of complex numerals: if the constituent with the highest valued
base is expressed first, the recipient interlocutor will more immediately have
an idea about the approximate value of the cardinality expressed. The lower
valued constituents only supply the details; cf. GREENBERG (1978: 274);
HEINE (1997: 22–23).
In this context, STAMPE (1976: 602–603) points out an interesting cross-
linguistic correlation: the reversal of the element order from the cross-
linguistically rare type four-and-twenty to the more natural order twenty-four
goes parallel with the dropping of the overt expression of the operator ‘+’.
Classical Greek , for instance, uses the Old English type plus an overt expres-
sion of the operator ‘+’ (téssara kaì eíkosi ‘4 + 20’) and in the modern Ger-
manic languages, this type is the only possible one in German (vier und zwan-
zig ‘4 + 20’). More significantly, there does not seem to be any instance of an
archaic use of the Old English type without overt expression of the operator,
i.e. *four-twenty, at any point in the history of English. The underlying hy-
pothesis that the order addend + multiple of ‘10’, being cognitively more diffi-
cult to process, cross-linguistically requires a linker between the two constitu-
ents is confirmed by the data from a large sample of European languages pre-
sented in STOLZ (2002: 373–379; § 4.2). Of the possible combinations of ad-
dend preceding/following the multiple of ‘10’ and presence/absence of a con-
nector ‘+’, the combination addend – multiple of ‘10’ without an overt opera-
tor ‘+’ does not occur.
The other post-Old English modification of the numeral system is formally
only slight but apparently has a far-reaching consequence. Through the intro-
duction of one lexical item, the fourth base million in late Middle English,
attested since the end of the 14th century (cf. MED VI, 470b-1a, s.v.
“miliǒun”), the scope of the numeral system could be extended enormously.
Yet a higher base used to be represented by (now archaic) milliard in British
English and is now superseded by billion, which, however, is used for varying
numerical values. The fact that the use of the fifth base billion for either ‘109’
or ‘1012’ follows a discernible geographical distribution shows that it was not

introduced until dialectal differences between the English on the British Isles
and its overseas varieties had to some degree become conventionalised (cf. the
short account in the Oxford English Dictionary; OED II, s.v. “billion”, 195b).
I find it questionable whether simple expressions for powers of ‘10’ yet
higher than ‘109’ can be taken as genuine bases of the system (cf. GREENBERG
1978: 253). COMRIE (2005b: 217) quotes the following expressions from an
internet search: undecillion ‘(106)11’, novemdecillion ‘(106)19’, vigintillion
‘(106)20’, unvigintillion ‘(106)21’, d(u)ovigintillion ‘(106)22’, novagintillion
‘(106)29’, centillion ‘(106)100’. I have no doubt that these expressions are at-
tested in some context, but the crucial question is to what extent their usage
can be compared with that of systemic numerals. The main criteria we have
employed here for including cardinality expressions into the system are the
counting sequence and recursive formation of more complex numerals (cf.
§ I.4). These criteria are only of theoretical value when it comes to expressions
for extremely high cardinalities. First, while these expressions, of course, do
fulfil the necessary requirements to be part of the recursive system, we hardly
have any instances of extremely high-valued base-like expressions being used
as constituents of complex numerals. Second, it would be conceivable that the
conventional counting sequence theoretically reaches such expressions but,
again, such a case is not attested. Where these expressions are attested, they
will hardly ever be used for numerically specific quantification in the strict
sense. As long as they are used in the sense of ‘extremely many’, they are not
numerals but numerically unspecific quantifiers. The fact that these expressi-
ons bear the potential to be systemic bases does not say anything about their
(synchronic) status in actual usage. I am, therefore, inclined to take these ex-
pressions as non-systemic, or even numerically unspecific quantifiers in the
sense of the distinction we have drawn above in § I.1. Cf. the short discussion
in the context of non-systemic expressions in Old English below in
§ III.3.3.
II.8 Ordinals
Before proceeding to more detailed aspects of the internal structure of com-

plex numerals and to some important characteristics of bases in Chapter III,
this final section of Chapter II will briefly treat the most important aspects of
the formation of ordinal numerals in Old English.
Morphologically, ordinal numerals are – with some exceptions (cf.
§§ II.2.1–2) – formed as derivations of the respective cardinal root. The mor-

phological process of forming ordinal numerals generally has no implications

for the structure and the constraints of the numeral system. However, ordinal
marking is a morphological process which in principle is exerted exclusively
on all numerically specific cardinality expressions and thus a central property
of cardinal numerals. In this regard, a section on ordinal numerals may well be
seen as a necessary complementation of a description of cardinal numerals.
Moreover, as we said above (§§ II.2.1–4), most cardinal numerals show inflec-
tion only in particular contexts or under certain constraints. Encoding the
function ‘ordinal number assignment’ is therefore the only morphological
process that is equally exerted on atoms, bases and complex numerals (except
the hybrid ordinals ‘first’ and ‘second’; cf. §§ II.8.1–2 below). Describing
ordinal numerals thus implicitly reveals properties of cardinal numerals. This
may be rather trivial in the case of simple numerals, but once the structures
become more complex, it should become rewarding to raise the question of
how one morphological process is encoded on a construction consisting of
several constituents, indeed on one that may be described as a construction
formed as a hierarchically ordered sequence (as we did in Figures 4, 10, 12, 13
above). This section on ordinals therefore not only complements the descrip-
tion of the numeral forms of Old English, it also provides some basic informa-
tion which will contribute to a number of aspects that will become relevant in
Chapter III.
We have just indicated that the ordinals for ‘first’ and ‘second’ are ex-
cluded from these morphological processes as the relevant expressions are
hybrid forms. As will be shown in the next two sections, these forms have no
morphological connection with the cardinal forms for ‘1’ and ‘2’. This is in
accordance with a universal principle predicting that, if an ordinal numeral is
suppletive (i.e. if it is morphologically not derived from the lexical root of the
corresponding cardinal), every lower valued ordinal is also suppletive (cf.,
among many others, GREENBERG 1978: 288; HURFORD 2001: 71; § 1.2.2).
More trivially, the generalisation states that if there are hybrid ordinals in a
language, they stand for the lowest numerical values.29
29 For a recent attempt at accounting for the hybrid character of ordinals for ‘first’ see
BARBIERS (2007). BARBIERS refers to general principles of quantification in which the nu-
merical value ‘1’ plays a different role than higher cardinalities. This is certainly an interest-
ing approach, but there seem to be some methodological problems with the study.
BARBIERS’ approach is inductive as it is based on data from Modern Dutch where only eer-
ste ‘first’ is suppletive. It thus leaves unconsidered the fact that in many languages the ordi-
nals ‘second’ and sometimes ‘third’ are also suppletive. Given that the implicational hierar-
chy mentioned above is undisputed, it seems doubtful whether any type of explanation of
the phenomenon may possibly be reduced to ‘first’ and exclude the next higher numerical
values.

Ordinals 119
All other simple ordinal expressions of Old English do stand in some mor-
phological relation to the respective cardinals. Yet morphophonemic cross-
influences between ordinal suffix and root have altered the shape of the nu-
meral roots in most cases so that a uniform derivational pattern may not be
transparent without drawing on diachronic knowledge. The following small
sections are designed as brief descriptions of the relevant forms and do not
attempt at achieving a comprehensive discussion of all relevant aspects.
II.8.1 The expressions for ‘first’
As will be shown in more detail below, there is no expression that can be

taken as the default ordinal numeral corresponding to PDE first. There is a
relatively large number of lexemes in Old English all of which may be used
with the ordinal meaning ‘first’.
ÆREST is a superlative of the suppletive comparative ÆR ‘before, ere’, but it
is often used as an adverb in the sense of ‘at first, for the first time’. In this
sense, it can occasionally come close to performing ordinal functions as e.g. in
(2.20) and (2.21). The corresponding comparative form ÆR is often used in the
sense ‘former, earlier’, in which case it may likewise assign an ordinal number
to a referent; cf. (2.22). In none of these instances, however, is the implication
‘temporally prior, earliest’ completely absent.
(2.20) Ad 31.2 (CROSS/HILL 1982: 38): Saga me hwilc word wæs ærest. Ic þe secge,
drihten cwæð, gewurðe leoht.
Tell me, which word was [the] first. – I tell you, the Lord said, “Let there be
light!”
hwilc word wæs ærest
which word be(3SG.PST) first/earliest
(2.21) Bede 5 23.488.1 (MILLER 1890–1898: 488): Ða feng Cynegyls Ceolwulfes

broðer suna to rice, & hæfde an & þrittig wintra. & he onfeng ærest fulluhte
Westseaxna cyninga.
Then Cynegyl, Ceolwulf’s son’s brother came to power and he ruled for 31
years. And he was [the] first West-Saxon king to receive baptism.
he onfeng ærest fulluht-e
PPRN .3SG .NOM.M receive\PST.3SG first/earliest baptsim-ACC.SG

(2.22) ÆLet 6 7 (A SSMANN 1889 [1964]: 3, 50): Nu sæde ic ðe ær þis on þam ærrum
gewritum, hu se ælmihtiga drihten ealle þing gesceop, heofonas & eorðan &
ealne middaneard […],
Now, I told you in the first book, how the Almighty Lord crated all things,
heaven and earth, and the whole world, […]
on þam ærr-um gewrit-um
PREP DET:DAT.SG first/former-DAT.SG writing-DAT.SG
There is another set of lexemes that can be used as the ordinal ‘first’. The
comparative FORMA ‘former’ (cf. (2.23)) can sporadically be found assigning
an ordinal number to a referent. More common as an ordinal is the respective
superlative FYRMEST (cf. PDE foremost); cf. (2.24). A shortened form of this is
30
FYREST, which is the predecessor of PDE first.
(2.23) Or 1 14 (BATELY 1980: 35,26): Her endaþ sio forme boc & onginð sio æfterre.
The first book ends here and the second begins.
her endaþ sio form-e boc
Here end-3SG.PRS DET:3 SG.NOM.F first/former-NOM.SG.F book(F):NOM.SG
(2.24) LS 34 642 (MAGENNIS 1994: 53): […] and þæt wæs sona on þam fyrmestan
dagan þe Decius se casere to rixianne begann, […]
[…] and that was soon on the first days when the emperor Decius began to
reign […]
on þam fyrmest-an dag-an
PREP DET:DAT.PL.M first-OBL.PL day(M)-OBL.PL
Finally, the form of the cardinal AN is itself quite often used as an ordinal. This
is usually the case if the first item of an enumeration or list is specified; cf.
(2.25) and (2.26). Cf. RISSANEN (1997: 89–93) for an analysis of these in-
stances with respect to the use of the cardinal form in an ordinal construction.
30 Other forms like FRUM- ‘early, previous’ or FYREST (a superlative formation of the preposi-
tion fore ‘before’; hence PDE first) are occasionally mentioned in the literature as ordinals
for ‘1st’. Usually, however, these forms are attested in the sense ‘foremost’ rather than with
an unambiguously ordinal function.

Ordinals 121
(2.25) HomU 46 241 (NAPIER 1883 [1967]: 299, 14): and ðreo þing syndon, þe ne
beoð forgifene ne on þissere worulde ne on þam toweardan life: an is, þæt man
god to tale habbe, oðer, þæt man ærestes ne gelyfe; þrydde, þæt man ortruwige
godes mildheortnysse.
And there are three things which will not be forgiven, neither in this world nor
in the future life: one is, that one is blasphemous, the second, that one does not
believe in the resurrection, and the third, that one has doubts about god’s
mercy.
(2.26) Or 2 1.36.12 (BATELY 1980: 36, 12): Nu \we/ witon þæt ealle onwealdas from
him sindon, […]. An wæs Babylonicum, þær Ninus ricsade. Þæt oðer wæs
Creca, þær Alexander ricsade. Þridda wæs Affricanum, þæ[r] Ptolome
ricsedon. Se feorða is Romane, þe giet ricsiende sindon.
Now, we know that all empires are from him [i.e. from god] […]: The first is
the Babylonian [empire], where Ninus reigned. The second was Greece, where
Alexander reigned. The third was the African [empire] where the Ptolemies
reigned. The fourth is [that of the] Romans who are still reigning.
With respect to the various options the Old English language seems to provide
for expressing the ordinal concept ‘first’, the question is whether there was
any default term for this concept. Again, we may perhaps infer from Ælfric’s
Grammar which expression was perceived as the default expression for the
ordinal. However, while example (2.27) uses FYRMEST, in example (2.28) the
adjective FYRMEST is contrasted against the ordinal ÆREST, thus contrasting
two different types of being ‘outstanding’, i.e. ‘most important’ versus ‘earli-
est’.
(2.27) ÆGram 13.17 (ZUPITZA 1880 [2001]: 13): sume syndon ordinalia, þa
geswuteljað endebyrdnysse: primus fyrmest, secundus oðer, tertius ðridda, et
cetera.
Some [nouns (cf. ÆGram 11.8 ff.)] are ordinals: they specify the order: primus
the first, secundus the second, tertius the third and so forth.
(2.28) Comp 11.1.1 4 (HENEL 1934: 64): Ðis synd þa þry frigedagas þe man sceal
fæstan […] þæt is se æresta frigedæg on kalendis Maius & se oþer æfter
PENTECOSTEN, & se þridda on kalenda iulius, þæt is se fyrmesta friedæg.
These are the three holidays where we should be fasting […]: That is the first
Friday in the kalend of May and the second [Friday] after Pentecost, and the
third [Friday ] in the kalend of July which is the most important Friday.

Given the evidence presented here, it is perhaps justified to question whether

an ordinal numeral ‘first’ existed in Old English at all. There is a variety of
forms that demonstrate the potential to be employed in contexts in which an
ordinal ‘first’ may be appropriate. However, there is hardly an instance in
which these forms are used exclusively with ordinal function. It is true that,
independently of the particular language under examination, it is generally
difficult to distinguish between the ordinal use ‘first’ and related adjectival or
adverbial uses. However, the prototypical use of an ordinal ‘first’ is certainly
the specification of the first item in an enumeration or a list, and in Old Eng-
lish it is the cardinal form AN which is most commonly used in this prototypi-
cal context.
II.8.2 The expressions for ‘second’
Like the ordinals for ‘1’, those for the numerical value ‘2’ are all suppletive
forms. There are two different lexemes which are employed for ‘second’.
OE ÆFTER ‘subsequent, following’ is a comparative formation containing a
root which otherwise survives in the adverb OE EFT ‘afterwards, again’. In its
weak inflected form æft(e)ra, it is sometimes used as an ordinal. In most in-
stances, the implication ‘following’ cannot be completely interpreted away,
and the strictly ordinal sense is implied by the contextual reading rather than
by the primary lexical meaning of ÆFTER; cf. (2.29). The use of ÆFTER with
an exclusively ordinal function, as in (2.30), is therefore rare.
(2.29) ÆCHom II (Pref) 2.33 (GODDEN 1979: 2, 36): Ic gesette on twam bocum þa
gereccednyysse ðe ic awende, for ðan ðe ic ðohte þæt hit wære læsse æðryt to
gehyrenne, gif man ða ane boc ræt on anes geares ymbryne, and ða oðre on
ðam æftran geare.
I arranged the treatise which I have translated into two books, because I
thought that it were less tedious to listen, if that one book were read in the
course of one year, and the other in the following year.
on ðam æftran gear-e
PREP DET:DAT.SG subsequent:DAT.SG year-DAT.SG

Ordinals 123
(2.30) LawIne 26 (LIEBERMANN 1903: 100, 3): To fund[en]es cildes fostre, ðy forman
geare geselle VI scill., ðy æfterran XII, ðy ðriddan XXX, siððan be his wlite.
As child benefit for a foundling, give six shillings in the first year, twelve in
the second, 30 in the third, [and] afterwards according to their constitution.
ðy æfterran [gear-e]
DET:INS.SG second-INS.SG year-INS.SG
In the passage from Ælfric’s Grammar quoted above as (2.27) (§ II.8.1), we

could see that Ælfric uses OÞER as equivalent of Latin secundus. We may take
this as a hint that OÞER may be the default lexeme for the ordinal ‘second’.
The use of this lexeme for ordinal number assignment is older, since it is at-
tested in other Germanic and in some Indo-European languages, too.31 Like
PDE other, the expression is used in a wide variety of senses and implications,
such as ‘another’, ‘different’, etc., and instances where OÞER is used clearly
and exclusively as an ordinal are again rare; cf. (2.31) and (2.32).
(2.31) Met 20.181 (SEDGEFIELD 1899: 183, 186): forðæm ic lytle ær sweotole sæde
þæt sio sa[u]l wære þriefald gesceaft þegna gehwilces, forðæm uðwitan ealle
seggað ðætte an gecynd ælcre saule irsung sie, oðer wilnung; is sio þridde
gecynd þæm twæm betere, sio gesceadwisnes.
As I plainly said earlier on, that each man’s soul was a threefold creature, for
that reason all scholars say that one nature of every soul is anger, the other is
desire; the third nature – of higher value than the two – is reason.
(2.32) ÆCHom I.31 439.1 (CLEMOES 1997: 439): Wyrd-writeras secgað þæt
ðry leodscipas sind gehatene India. Seo forme India lið to ðæra
Silhearwena rice, seo oðer lið to Medas, seo ðridde to ðam micclum
garsecge […]
Historians say that there are three nations called India: the first India
lies towards the Ethiopian empire, the second lies towards the Medes,
the third by the great ocean.
31 The Proto-Germanic form */'anθar-az/ goes back to PIE *h2én-ter-os ‘other’ (> pre-
Germanic */'on-ter-o-/), which is also attested in the Baltic and Slavic languages (cf.
Lithuanian antràsis) along with its variant *h2él-ter-os, represented by Latin alter; cf.
PROKOSCH (1939: 292, § 100); SIHLER (1995: 429, § 398.2); BEEKES (1995: 216, § 16.2).

II.8.3 The ordinal forms of the simple numerals
The ordinal ÞRIDDE is the first element in the sequence of ordinals that is not a
hybrid form. However, it shows a considerable deviation from the cardinal
root; its morphophonemic development must have diverged from the other
regularly formed ordinals at a very early stage of common Germanic. While
the regular suffix of the ordinals in Proto-Germanic was *-þa- (< PIE *-tó-/-
*-to-), the forms for ‘third’ in all Germanic languages can be accounted for
only if we postulate a suffix *-þja- for this numeral.
From ‘fourth’ onwards, the ordinal suffix -ÞA is applied in its regular
shape. Morphophonemic cross-influences nevertheless occur in many forms.
In FEOR-ÞA ‘fourth’, the root FEOWER has been shortened. In FIF-TA ‘fifth’ and
SIX-TA ‘sixth’, the stop /-t-/ (rather than /-θ-/) in the suffix still represents the
pre-Germanic form, as a preceding fricative usually prevented the Germanic
Consonant Shift from taking effect. In SEOFO-ÞA ‘seventh’ and NIGO-ÞA
‘ninth’, the root-final nasal was dropped regularly before fricatives. The same
holds for ENDLYF-TA ‘eleventh’ and TWELF-TA ‘twelfth’. Among the atomic
numerals, the form EAHTO-ÞA ‘eighth’ (with frequent variants showing 〈-aða〉
and 〈-eða〉) alone shows a relatively regular formation of cardinal root and
affix. The most common ordinal form for ‘tenth’ is TEO-ÞA, of which the vari-
ant TEG(E)ÞA (/'tej(@)θa/) is predominant in northern texts. Cf. Figure 14 for a
summary of the simple ordinals:
ÞRIDDE ‘3rd’
FEOR-ÞA ‘4th’
FIF-TA ‘5th’
SIX-TA ‘6th’
SEOFO-TA ‘7th’
EAHTO- ÞA ‘8th’
NIGO-ÞA ‘9th’
TEO-ÞA ‘10th’
ENDLYF-TA ‘11th’
TWELF-TA ‘12th’
Figure 14. Ordinal forms of simple numerals

Ordinals 125
The use of the ordinal suffix -ÞA with the higher bases HUND(RED) and ÞUSEND
is not attested.32 Expressions for ‘hundredth’, whether as simple forms or as
constituents of complex expressions, are formed as circumfixed expressions of
the type HUNDTEONTIGOÐA (for which see below). The earliest instance of an
ordinal form of HUNDRED in English is not attested before the fourteenth cen-
tury (cf. MED IV: 1034a, s.v. “hundredethe, ord.num.”) and one of ÞUSEND is
even younger as thousandth does not occur before the sixteenth century (cf.
OED XVII: 988b, s.v. “thousandth”).
II.8.4 The ordinal formation of complex forms
The ordinals from ‘13th’ to ‘19th’ are basically compounds consisting of the
atomic cardinal and the ordinal TEOÐA ‘10th’, i.e. typically þreo-teoþa ‘13th’,
feower-teoþa ‘14th’, etc. The ordinals of the multiples of ‘10’ use -TIGOÞA up
to ‘60th’ and HUND-__-TIGOÞA from ‘70th’ onwards to express the multiplicand
‘× 10th’ (‘-tieth’). Cf. Figures 15 and 16, respectively:
ÞREO( T) -TEOÞA ‘13th’

FEOWER -TEOÞA ‘14th’
FIF -TEOÞA ‘15th’
SYX -TEOÞA ‘16th’
SEOFON -TEOÞA ‘17th’
*EAHTA TEOÞA ‘18th’
NIGON -TEOÞA ‘19th’
Figure 15. Ordinal numerals for the teens
32 Northumbrian documents attest to 〈hundreð-〉 / 〈hundrað-〉. These are cardinal numerals,

apparently influenced by (or, borrowed from) Old Norse. There is, however, one instance of
〈hundrað〉 in the Lindisfarne gloss (MtHeadGl (Li) 78; cf. SKEAT 1887: 21) where
hundraðes renders Latin centensimi. It appears to be used as an ordinal although the scribe’s
motivation to use this particular form is, as is often the case in a word-to-word gloss, diffi-
cult to determine. The use of hundrað in this instance may be accounted for by the fact that
Latin centesimus is usually rendered by a nominalised form of hundred whenever it refers
to a ‘set or unit of a hundred (people)’.

TWEN -TIGOÞA ‘20th’

ÞRI -TIGOÞA ‘30th’
FEOWER -TIGOÞA ‘40th’
FIF -TIGOÞA ‘50th’
SYX -TIGOÞA ‘60th’
HUND -SEOFON -TIGOÞA ‘70th’
HUND -EAHTA -TIGOÞA ‘80th’
HUND -NIGON -TIGOÞA ‘90th’
HUND -TEON -TIGOÞA ‘100th’
*HUND -ÆLLEF -TIGOÞA ‘110th’
*HUND -TWELF -TIGOÞA ‘120th’
Figure 16. Ordinal numerals for the multiples of ‘10’
It should be said that the lists in Figures 15 and 16 both form idealised and in
part reconstructed sets. The three asterisked forms are indeed not attested in
this very spelling. The expression for ‘120th’ listed in Figure 16 is indeed not
attested at all.33 Apart from the fact that it is impossible to deal with all aspects
of the variation of all relevant morphemes that can be found in Old English
documents, the present discussion is intended to focus on the morphological
process forming ordinal numerals. For this purpose it is justified, perhaps nec-
essary, to disregard variation.
Generally two different structures are conceivable for ordinal forms of
complex numerals. One in which an ordinal form representing the base, say,
‘10’ (and the relevant arithmetic operation), is attached to the atomic cardinal
form (Type A) and one in which the ordinal marker is attached to the complex
cardinal (Type B):
Type A: atom – [10 – ORD]

Type B: [atom – 10] – ORD
The way Figures 15 and 16 present the structures implies that ordinals of both
sets, the teens and the multiples of ‘10’, are formed according to Type A, be-
cause the expressions are listed without a morpheme boundary between the
elements for ‘10’ and what could be identified as the ordinal marker -ÞA. In-
33 The few instances where complex ordinals with ‘120’ as augend are expressed are forms of
the type HUND-TWENTIGOÞA in which hund is not part of a circumfix but represents the
augend ‘100’, so that the form does not represent either of the formation patterns discussed
below, but the structure ‘100 + (2 × 10)-ORD’.

Ordinals 127
deed, many of the attested forms in the ancient Germanic languages suggest
that, diachronically, the formation of the ordinals of the augend ‘+ 10th’
(‘-teenth’) and the ordinals of the multiplicand ‘× 10th’ (‘-tieth’) must have
developed according to pattern A, i.e. as a construction consisting of the re-
spective atomic form and the ordinal ‘10th’, as suggested by ROSS/BERNS
(1992: 637, § 15.20). It is, of course, difficult to trace the structure that was
actually in use in the early stage of the common Germanic period. But the
phonological shapes of the West Saxon suffixes -TEOÞA ‘+ 10th; -teenth’ and
-TIGOÞA ‘× 10th; -tieth’ allow for the assumption that, in the pre-Germanic
period, the difference between the two must have been marked by a different
stress position in the compounds consisting of atomic cardinal plus ordinal
form of ‘10’. Thus -TEOÞA ‘-teenth’ is derived from Proto-
Germanic */-'tiχun-θa/ ‘+ 10th’ with the stress on the element ‘10’, whereas
-TIGOÞA is derived from Proto-Germanic */'-tiχun-θa/ ‘× 10th’ with the stress
on the atomic constituent. The different stress patterns, then, caused different
sequences of sound changes to affect the two forms which resulted in the at-
tested suffixes -TEOÞA ‘+ 10th; -teenth’ and -TIGOÞA ‘× 10th; -tieth’, respec-
tively.
The alternative way, Type B, would be to add the ordinal suffix -þa to the
complex cardinal forms described in §§ II.4.2–3. In spite of the phonologically
sound reconstruction that allows to assume Type A as the underlying type of
composition, some aspects of the forms in Figure 16 also clearly speak in fa-
vour of Type B. One is that the expressions for ‘20th’, ‘30th’, ‘100th’ and
‘110th’ use the same allomorph for the atomic constituent as the corresponding
cardinal forms do. This would clearly suggest that some variant of an ordinal
marker – synchronically this would be -OÞA – is attached to the complex car-
dinals of Figures 7, 9, and 11 (§ II.4.3) as a whole (Type B). Moreover, the
use of the circumfixes in the ordinals can only be accounted for if we assume
Type B to be underlying.
What may look a bit like a dilemma can perhaps be resolved if we accept
that the answer does not need to be categorical. I believe it is very likely that
both formation types not only interfered with each other at one identifiable
point in history, but also that the two types have the potential to constantly
interfere during the development of a language (and did so at least during
longer periods of the history of English). Whereas the Old English ordinals for
the teens, the expressions in Figure 15, are obviously formed according to
Type A, nowadays the same set is expressed according to Type B
(PDE X-teen-th). Not only are there the two opposing forces of ease of pro-
nunciation (leading to morphophonemic alternations on the syntagmatic level)
and of paradigmatic transparency (levelling out such disturbances, however

not necessarily in a way uniform across the entire paradigm). Additionally, the
latter force may operate on different morpheme boundaries: if the atomic
forms should be made transparent, the remaining part consisting of ‘10’ and of
the ordinal affix are treated as one unit whose structural opacity will be ac-
cepted. If the ordinal function should be made morphologically transparent,
the complex cardinal forms will be seen as a whole (irrespective of how trans-
parent its internal structure may be). Thus, theoretically, there are three forces
constantly at work: one on the syntagmatic level and two likewise opposing
ones on the paradigmatic level.
As a final remark it is worth noting in this context that the two elements
postulated in Figures 15 and 16, -TEOÞA (/-te;oθa/) and -TIGOÞA (/-tiγoθa/), are
phonologically not very distant. Indeed, for the latter form, -TIGOÞA ‘-tieth’, a
variant -teoþa is attested which, due to contraction has become homonymous
with the former, particularly in copies of the interlinear gloss to the Benedic-
tine Rule. And, vice versa, in Mercian texts, ordinals for the teens often show
the form -teogoþa ‘-teenth’, otherwise a common variant of -TIGOÞA ‘-tieth’.
For several reasons, confusion is nevertheless hardly ever likely to occur be-
cause, in most instances, the context clearly suggests only one of the two nu-
merical values. In other cases, the circumfixed structure, i.e. the addition of
the preposed element HUND-, disambiguates. For instance, in the interlinear
gloss to the Benedictine Rule in ms. Tiberius A.iii, there is a strikingly clear
distinction between contracted forms -teoþa and full forms -tigoþa for ‘-tieth’:
the contracted form only occurs as part of the circumfix, i.e. as hund-__-teoða
for the ordinals from ‘70th’ onwards, whereas the common full form -teogoða
is restricted to ‘-tieth’ in the lower valued multiples of ‘10’ in which the use of
the contracted -TEOÞA would indeed cause confusion with ‘-teenth’.
The use of the ordinal forms in such a way is indeed exceptional, but, re-
markably, these cases show two things. First, there is potentially a constant
need for re-arrangements of the two paradigms discussed in these sections.
Second, however confusing a paradigm may be that results from such re-
arrangements, the strongest force that prevails over the principles of economy
and transparency is that, as postulated in § I.4.2.1, in one variety (and may it
be the variety of only one historical document), there can only be one expres-
sion for one numerical value.


The Numeral System of Old English: Tyne TIG Hund TIG

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Numeral System of Old English: Tyne TIG Hund TIG

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter II

The numeral system of Old English

The general introduction to cardinal numerals and numeral systems presented

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

lysed according to the framework developed in Chapter I. The remaining sec-

II.1 Overview: the simple forms

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

‘1’ ‘2’ ‘3’ ‘4’ ‘5’ ‘6’ ‘7’ ‘8’ ‘9’

AN TWA ÞREO FEOWER FIF SYX SEOFON EAHTA NIGON

Figure 3. Atomic numerals of Old English

‘101’ ‘102’ 103’

TYN HUND(RED) ÞUSEND

Figure 4. Base numerals of Old English

Figure 5. Old English expressions for ‘11’ and ‘12’

13 See note 3 in § I.3.1.

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.2 The atoms

II.2.1 The numerical value ‘1’

A discussion of the forms of OE AN ‘1’ as a numeral in the strict sense is diffi-

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Table 8. Strong forms of AN Table 9. Weak forms of AN

NOM ān NOM āna āne āne

II.2.2 The numerical value ‘2’

Table 10. Inflectional paradigm of TWA ‘2’

NOM twegen twa, tu twa

A few remarks will be necessary on the distribution of the nominative/-

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

sint on gecynd-e cealda

In a similar way, the use of TU as an exclusively neuter numeral can expand in

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.2.3 The numerical value ‘3’

Table 11. Inflectional paradigm of ÞREO ‘3’

NOM þrȳ, þrī(e) þreo þreo

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.2.4 The atomic values from ‘4’ to ‘9’

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.3 The expressions for ‘11’ and ‘12’

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.4 The first base ‘10’

II.4.1 The simple forms for ‘10’

II.4.2 The teens

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

of arithmetic operation is inherent in the use of the formally distinct affix

‘13’ ‘14’ ‘15’ ‘16’ ‘17’ ‘18’ ‘19’

þreo-tyne feower-tyne fif-tyne syx-tyne seofon-tyne eahta-tyne nigon- tyne

Figure 6. Old English expressions for the teens

II.4.3 The multiples of ‘10’

II.4.3.1 The expressions up to ‘60’

‘10’ ‘20’ ‘30’ ‘40’ ‘50’ ‘60’

The sequence of atoms is used cyclically as addends to each multiple of ‘10’.

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

‘21’ […] ‘32’ […] ‘67’

1 + (2 × 10) […] 2 + (3 × 10) […] 7 + (6 × 10)

Figure 8. Atomic numerals as addends to the multiples of the base

The element TWEN- in TWEN-TIG ‘2 × 10’ is an allomorph of TWA representing

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

‘3’ as a multiplier in the sequence of multiples of ‘10’ is also represented

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo

II.4.3.2 The expressions for ‘70’, ‘80’, and ‘90’

While the numeral system of Old English as described so far is structurally

Brought to you by | Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Econo