20. tula guena = man 1.
    40. tula pogua = man 2.
   100. tula atala = man 5.
   120. tula nergua = man 6.
  1000. tula wala guena = great 1 man.

The last expression may, perhaps, be translated “great hundred,” though the literal meaning is the one given.  If 10, instead of 20, is expressed by the word “man,” the multiples of 10 follow the law just given for multiples of 20.  This is sufficiently indicated by the Kusaie scale; or equally well by the Api words for 100 and 200, which are[119]

duulimo toromomo = 10 times the whole man.

duulimo toromomo va juo = 10 times the whole man taken 2 times.

As an illustration of the legitimate result which is produced by the attempt to express high numbers in this manner the term applied by educated native Greenlanders[120] for a thousand may be cited.  This numeral, which is, of course, not in common use, is

inuit kulit tatdlima nik kuleriartut navdlugit = 10 men 5 times 10
times come to an end.

It is worth noting that the word “great,” which appears in the scale of the San Blas Indians, is not infrequently made use of in the formation of higher numeral words.  The African Mabas[121] call 10 atuk, great 1; the Hottentots[122] and the Hidatsa Indians call 100 great 10, their words being gei disi and pitikitstia respectively.

The Nicaraguans[123] express 100 by guhamba, great 10, and 400 by dinoamba, great 20; and our own familiar word “million,” which so many modern languages have borrowed from the Italian, is nothing more nor less than a derivative of the Latin mille, and really means “great thousand.”  The Dakota[124] language shows the same origin for its expression of 1,000,000, which is kick ta opong wa tunkah, great 1000.  The origin of such terms can hardly be ascribed to poverty of language.  It is found, rather, in the mental association of the larger with the smaller unit, and the consequent repetition of the name of the smaller.  Any unit, whether it be a single thing, a dozen, a score, a hundred, a thousand, or any other unit, is, whenever used, a single and complete group; and where the relation between them is sufficiently close, as in our “gross” and “great gross,” this form of nomenclature is natural enough to render it a matter of some surprise that it has not been employed more frequently.  An old English nursery rhyme makes use of this association, only in a manner precisely the reverse of that which appears now and then in numeral terms.  In the latter case the process is always one of enlargement, and the associative word is “great.”  In the following rhyme, constructed by the mature for the amusement of the childish mind, the process is one of diminution, and the associative word is “little”: 

   One’s none,
   Two’s some,
   Three’s a many,
   Four’s a penny,
   Five’s a little hundred.[125]