Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

> >>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.
>
> Peter:
> > Well, the numeral 7 seems to be borrowed from various IE branches
> > (Baltic, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian), we will agree.
>
> I think that there is a danger in this assumption that the lack of
> reconstructable words above "six" show that Uralic speakers used a
> six-based number system. I think that there is a reason for why we
> don't find things above "six". The reason is Neolithic world-view.

Even if it were true that we could not find reconstructable words
above six, it would be unfavourable to infer a Neolithic world-view.
I've been over some 1500 first-hand sources of numeral systems,
and Neolithic-worldview speakers typically have 2-4 monomorphemic numerals.
Quite often the have fingercounting which ranges up to 5, 10 or 20.
Extremely seldom, if at all, are there monomorphemic numerals up to
exactly 6.

> We also don't know what IE had before it adopted *septm from a Semitic
> tongue.

It should be noted that it is typologically very rare to borrow exactly
one single numeral and not at the same time borrow all the ones above it.
It is also typologically rare that the number '7' is borrowed alone. One
would indeed have to argue for a special religious or mythological
signficance to get away with a seven alone being borrowed.

/H