But such is the case; and in a few instances languages have been found to be absolutely destitute of pure numeral words.
The Chiquitos of Bolivia had no real numerals whatever,[1] but expressed their idea for "one" by the word _etama_, meaning alone.

The Tacanas of the same country have no numerals except those borrowed from Spanish, or from Aymara or Peno, languages with which they have long been in contact.[2] A few other South American languages are almost equally destitute of numeral words.

But even here, rudimentary as the number sense undoubtedly is, it is not wholly lacking; and some indirect expression, or some form of circumlocution, shows a conception of the difference between _one_ and _two_, or at least, between _one_ and _many_.
These facts must of necessity deter the mathematician from seeking to push his investigation too far back toward the very origin of number.
Philosophers have endeavoured to establish certain propositions concerning this subject, but, as might have been expected, have failed to reach any common ground of agreement.

Whewell has maintained that "such propositions as that two and three make five are necessary truths, containing in them an element of certainty beyond that which mere experience can give." Mill, on the other hand, argues that any such statement merely expresses a truth derived from early and constant experience; and in this view he is heartily supported by Tylor.[3] But why this question should provoke controversy, it is difficult for the mathematician to understand.

Either view would seem to be correct, according to the standpoint from which the question is approached.