6. Another reason for the necessity of names to numbers.
This I think to be the reason why some Americans I
have spoken with, (who were otherwise of quick and rational parts enough,) could not, as we do, by any means
count to 1000; nor had any distinct idea of that number, though they could reckon very well to 20. Because their
language being scanty, and accommodated only to the few necessaries of a needy, simple life, unacquainted either
with trade or mathematics, had no words in it to stand for 1000; so that when they were discoursed with of those
greater numbers, they would show the hairs of their head, to express a great multitude, which they could not
number; which inability, I suppose, proceeded from their want of names. The Tououpinambos had no names for
numbers above 5; any number beyond that they made out by showing their fingers, and the fingers of others who
were present. And I doubt not but we ourselves might distinctly number in words a great deal further than we
usually do, would we find out but some fit denominations to signify them by; whereas, in the way we take now to
name them, by millions of millions of millions, etc., it is hard to go beyond eighteen, or at most, four and twenty,
decimal progressions, without confusion. But to show how much distinct names conduce to our well reckoning, or
having useful ideas of numbers, let us see all these following figures in one continued line, as the marks of one
number: v. g.
| Nonillions | Octillions | Septillions | Sextillions | Quintrillions |
| 857324 | 162486 | 345896 | 437918 | 423147 |
| Quartrillions | Trillions | Billions | Millions | Units |
| 248106 | 235421 | 261734 | 368149 | 623137 |
The ordinary way of naming this number in English, will be the often repeating of millions, of millions, of
millions, of millions, of millions, of millions, of millions, of millions, (which is the denomination of the second
six figures). In which way, it will be very hard to have any distinguishing notions of this number. But whether, by
giving every six figures a new and orderly denomination, these, and perhaps a great many more figures in
progression, might not easily be counted distinctly, and ideas of them both got more easily to ourselves, and more
plainly signified to others, I leave it to be considered. This I mention only to show how necessary distinct names
are to numbering, without pretending to introduce new ones of my invention.
