s. Different from the question, to what degree have we numbers? is the question,--over what extent of our language have we numbers? This distinction has already been foreshadowed or indicated. The Greeks, who said _typt[^o]_=_I beat_, _typteton_=_ye two beat_, _typtomen_=_we beat_, had a dual number for their verbs as well as their nouns; while the Hebrew dual was limited to the nouns only. In the Greek, then, the dual {226} number is spread over a greater extent of the language than in the Hebrew. There is no dual in the present English. It has been seen, however, that in the Anglo-Saxon there _was_ a dual. But the Anglo-Saxon dual, being restricted to the personal pronouns (_wit_=_we two_; _git_=_ye two_), was not co-extensive with the Greek dual. There is no dual in the present German. In the ancient German there was one. In the present Danish and Swedish there is no dual. In the Old Norse and in the present Icelandic a dual number is to be found. From this we learn that the dual number is one of those inflections that languages drop as they become modern. The numbers, then, in the present English are two, the singular and the plural. Over what extent of language have we a plural? The Latins say, _bonus pater_=_a good father_; _boni patres_=_good fathers_. In the Latin, the adjective _bonus_ changes its form with the change of number of the substantive that it accompanies. In English it is only the substantive that is changed. Hence we see that in the Latin language the numbers were extended to adjectives, whereas in English they are confined to the substantives and pronouns. Compared with the Anglo-Saxon, the present English is in the same relation as it is with the Latin. In the Anglo-Saxon there were plural forms for the adjectives. For the forms _selves_ and _others_, see the Syntax. For the present, it is sufficient to foreshadow a remark which will be made on the word _self_, _viz._ that whether it be a pronoun, a substantive, or an adjective, is a disputed point. Words like _wheat_, _pitch_, _gold_, &c., where the idea is naturally singular; words like _bellows_, _scissors_, _lungs_, &c., where the idea is naturally plural; and words like _deer_, _sheep_, where the same form serves for the singular and plural, inasmuch as there takes place no change of form, are not under the province of etymology.