Re: Numbers.

Hi,

--- In cybalist@..., markodegard@... wrote:
> The recent discussions on IE numbers has set me to thinking. It's
> occurred to me that the concept of 'number' comes rather late to
human
> languages. It's not that our ancestors did not know how to count,
or
> were unaware of quantity. What I am suggesting is that the idea of
> distinct numbers, going of into infinity, did not come along until
> about the time the precursors of writing emerged, i.e., at the time
> you started to have to represent quantity with symbols.
Before symbols?Hmm...
Do you mean before the human language existed? Before we spoke?;-)
In that case I think that was quite a while ago. 200 000 Y?
Seriously speaking I haven't heard of this theory before. I guess
I've just assumed that once man could speak he could also learn to
say things like thirtysix and two hundred, even if other systems than
the decimal one were used.

> In preliterate societies, where you never have need to write down a
> number, an exact low number (but not too far above twenty) can be
> represented with gesture, with fingers.

As I said another system might have been used, but would this
necessarily have been more primitive and less functional.
I believe there would be a need to express distances e. g.


For things like tally sticks,
> the usual system seems to have been units, and then, sets of units,
> vs. an exact numeric representation. They could count, but seem not
to
> have counted the way we do, with distinct numerals.

That seems quite obvious to me that no specific numerical system is
innate. I think it always has to be learnt. Which system obviously
depends on the parents in question. Eg the mexicans used a base of
twenty if i remember it right.

> I'm suggesting our ancestors did not think in numbers, but rather,
in
> sets, collectives. My speculation is that what 'numerals' they had
> were actually nouns describing such sets.
>
> The quirky thing about numerals is that they are fundamentally
> adjectives, describing a quality rather than a thing (tho', of
> coruse, every number can also be a noun). The great breakthrough
must
> have been when we first figured out this quality, and then
> re-organized the counting system to accomodate the minting of such
a
> huge number of adjectives.

Mm, somehow I see what You mean. It's a question of the advatages
some linguistical elements have over others.

I remember reading something that languages evolve amazingly fast.
Much faster than the equivalent evolution in the nature. Can You coun
and compare this by the way?;-)(but I think I remeber the author said
something like that) It was in Terence Deacon's The co-evolution of
language and the human Brain

> While we learn the number system early and quickly in childhood, it
> seems to not be an intrinsically intuitive thing. It's something
that
> has to be taught.
> Thoughts?
I think that nothing of our language is innate. I. e everything has
to be learnt.

Best wishes
Anders