Peter P wrote
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "petusek" <petusek@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> presumed to be fairly recent in Finnish since the original FU
>> >> speakers had a base 6 number system, [...]
>>
>> Did they? Can you give me some examples? Not that I object to
>it, ...
>
>> Petusek
>
>I just restated from Nykysoumen Sanakirja by Häkkinen p 133.
>
>It is also known that the numbers 1 to 6 are related in most Uralic
>languages, but numbers above 7 are not, so base 10 counting seems to
>have evolved later.
Well, the numeral 7 seems to be borrowed from various IE branches (Baltic,
Tocharian, Indo-Iranian), we will agree. The numbers above 7 (8 & 9) perhaps
represent this substractive pattern: "10-2" (8) & "10-1" (9) As for Ug "8",
it could be analysed as the dual form of "4". Blaz^ek (in Numerals, p. 98)
thinks that (among other denotations of the numeral "10") the FiMd *kümeni
is the most archaic one (given proto-Yukaghir *kümne- "10")
Therefore, it can be assumed that there was a firmly established system of
1-5 and 10 in Uralic languages.
>
>Why a base 6 system? If you count the fingers of one hand, 1-5 and
>record this counts with a finger of the other hand, 6 will represent
>the first finger of the other hand, 12 the next 18 the next, ...24,
>36. So using 10 fingers one can count to 36.
>
>Peter P
Well, that's nice, indeed, but can you give me some examples of numeral
above 10 that were formed on the basis of 6's? Do you want to claim it was
like the vigesimal system of Latin and other languages, yet based on "6",
not "20"? Pleease, pleease, I wonder what it is/was/could be like (in order
not to disturb others here at the Cybalist, you can send it to my private
e-mail address:
petusek@...)...
As for the examples, I would like you (if possible) to reveal if the
counting, the internal structure of certain numerals was really formed like
12=6+6 (the dual of six?), 18=6+6+6 etc. could you (or anybody), please?
Thanx :-)
Petusek