Fw: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

> To sum it up, I have encountered following systems of (creating) numerals:
>
> Two basic types:
> A: Direct (transparent) semantic motivation (most often body parts,
> sometimes pronominal, verbal or dif. origin)
> B: Transparent application of arithmetic operations (sum, substraction,
> multiplication, etc.)
> C: Combination of A & B, often analysable only when using etymological
> approach
>
> And, just as any part of lexicon, sometimes, numerals were and are

borrowed,

> of course.

And I should add one more thing: as for numerical systems (ad B, mainly), I
have encountered the following, so far:

1. Binary (e.g. Jawony, the Gunwinyguan family of Australian macro-phylum)
(i.e. 1, 2, 2+1, 2+2, 2+2+1, ...)
2. Organized in pairs (e.g. Old Japanese: 1/2 fitö/futa, 3/6 mi/mu, 4/8
yö/ya, 5/10 i-tu/töwo; Nama of the Khoi-San m-p.: /gui & /gaw "1" & "2",
etc.)
3. Ternary (e.g. Yukaghir: 1,2,3,3+1,...,3+3,...)
4. Qaternary (e.g. Chumash of Santa Barbara: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4&1, 4&2, 4&3,
8...)
5. Quinary (e.g. Sumerian, where the ternary system was also used, etc.)

Petusek