FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57  
58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   >>   >|  
he western system would go back to Persia, when the perfected Hindu one was near at hand. At first sight there would seem to be some reason for believing that this feature of the [.g]ob[=a]r system was of {67} Arabic origin, and that the present zero of these people,[256] the dot, was derived from it. It was entirely natural that the Semitic people generally should have adopted such a scheme, since their diacritical marks would suggest it, not to speak of the possible influence of the Greek accents in the Hellenic number system. When we consider, however, that the dot is found for zero in the Bakh[s.][=a]l[=i] manuscript,[257] and that it was used in subscript form in the _Kit[=a]b al-Fihrist_[258] in the tenth century, and as late as the sixteenth century,[259] although in this case probably under Arabic influence, we are forced to believe that this form may also have been of Hindu origin. The fact seems to be that, as already stated,[260] the Arabs did not immediately adopt the Hindu zero, because it resembled their 5; they used the superscript dot as serving their purposes fairly well; they may, indeed, have carried this to the west and have added it to the [.g]ob[=a]r forms already there, just as they transmitted it to the Persians. Furthermore, the Arab and Hebrew scholars of Northern Africa in the tenth century knew these numerals as Indian forms, for a commentary on the _S[=e]fer Ye[s.][=i]r[=a]h_ by Ab[=u] Sahl ibn Tamim (probably composed at Kairw[=a]n, c. 950) speaks of "the Indian arithmetic known under the name of _[.g]ob[=a]r_ or dust calculation."[261] All this suggests that the Arabs may very {68} likely have known the [.g]ob[=a]r forms before the numerals reached them again in 773.[262] The term "[.g]ob[=a]r numerals" was also used without any reference to the peculiar use of dots.[263] In this connection it is worthy of mention that the Algerians employed two different forms of numerals in manuscripts even of the fourteenth century,[264] and that the Moroccans of to-day employ the European forms instead of the present Arabic. The Indian use of subscript dots to indicate the tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., is established by a passage in the _Kit[=a]b al-Fihrist_[265] (987 A.D.) in which the writer discusses the written language of the people of India. Notwithstanding the importance of this reference for the early history of the numerals, it has not been mentioned by previous writers on this subject
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57  
58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

numerals

 

century

 

Indian

 
system
 
people
 

Arabic

 

influence

 

subscript

 
reference
 

Fihrist


origin
 

present

 

reached

 

peculiar

 

western

 

suggests

 

composed

 

Persia

 
calculation
 

speaks


arithmetic

 

worthy

 

writer

 

discusses

 

written

 

passage

 

language

 

mentioned

 

previous

 

writers


subject

 

history

 
Notwithstanding
 

importance

 

established

 

manuscripts

 

employed

 
Algerians
 
connection
 

mention


fourteenth

 
hundreds
 

thousands

 

European

 
Moroccans
 
employ
 

perfected

 

derived

 

manuscript

 

feature