[tied] Re: Numbers.

We seem to be disagreeing just to disagree. The Greek counting system
was clumsy, but comes close to what we might agree might be called
'modern', rather like trying to do long division in Roman numerals vs.
Arabic. They could say the number, write the number, even if it was a
very big number.

Being able to form a largish number is a very practical outgrowth of
civilization and trade. The king needs to tax, and the merchant needs
to move (and be paid for) large quantities of goods; both needed to
keep records, if only on rudimentary tally devices.

How long ago? I suspect the 6-5000s BCE is a reasonable guess. Glen's
throwout date of 20,000 years ago seems too long ago.

--- In cybalist@..., lsroute66@... wrote:
> "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:
>
> > Enough, people! I was speaking about numbers in languages *in
> > general*. When refering to a specific language, of course we might
> > call its numerals "nouns" or "adjectives" or whatever makes sense
> > for that language.
>
> In the sense of a number or numbers being purely "abstract" nouns, I
> don't think you'll find much evidence of that before Pythagoras,
> Plato, Euclid et al -- at least in the "West."
>
> By that I mean, if you look for a number as an idea separate from
> what
> is being counted or numbered. E.g., My favorite number is Four.
> Seven
> is sacred. There's nothing like it in Homer or Hittite. I'm told
> that a rare example is found in Babylonian arithmatic lesson texts.

> But otherwise numbers were adjectival - without any evidence of the
> idea as anything but that of a descriptor.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Long