Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

> >There are (or were) attested true base-6 systems in Frederik-Hendrik island
> >outside Papua New Guinea. But it is 6, 2x6, 3x6 etc (see source below).
>
> I see, could you possibly cite the source - just a brief excerpt or example,
> please?
>
> Something like this - in a Trans-New Guinean language (Indo-Pacific
> macrophylum?) called Aghu (="person", aghu-bigi = "person-bon" = "20"), the
> numeral 6, 12 & 18 are as follows:
>
> (bidikimu/bidikuma = "one hand", bifidikimu/a "the one hand")
> "6" bidikuma-fasike "hand + one"
> "12" kito wodo womu "the toe next to the middle toe"
> "18" afi-kito efe womu "the other toe in the middle"
>
> or like this:
>
> Telefol (Trans-New Guinean phylum of the Indo-Pacific macrophylum):
>
> "6" bukubkal "fist of the left hand"
> "12" tulunkal "left ear"
> ...
>
> Kombai; Korowai; Wambon (three languages of the same phylum)
>
> "1" raga; senan; sanop "little finger"
> ...
> "6" go; gédu; kumuk "wrist"
> "12" khabiya (head); khotokhal (ear); silutop (ear)
> ...

No, no, not body-tally systems (which are usually weakly integrated into
the language) but bona-fide base-6 systems e.g Ndom:
1 sas
2 thef
3 ithin
4 thonìth
5 merègh
6 mer
7 (mer) abo sas
8 (mer) abo thef
9 (mer) abo ithin
10 (mer) abo thonìth
11 (mer) abo merègh
12 mer an thef
13 mer an thef abo sas
..
18 töndör
19 töndör abo sas
..
36 nif
72 nif thef
108 nif ithìn
..

> >There is other evidence of base-6 in Guinea (in Africa) as well as in
> >some North American Indian lgs but it's not so systematic nor
> >well-attested (ask for sources).
> >
>
> Well, maybe. I am aware of the first decade in Yuma (Hoka family), but it is
> based on multiplication in general (thus not on 6's), e.g.:
>
> "2" xavik < *xwak
> "3" xamók < *xmuk
> "6" xuumxuuk = 2x3
> "9" xamxamok = 3x3

Yes. But no base 6.

> or Chumash of Santa Barbara:
>
> "2" ickomo
> "3" masex
> "4" ckumu = "2x2" or "2^2"
> "8" ckomo (Chumash of San Luis Obispo) = "2x2x2" or "2^3"
> "12" masex-eskumu = "3x4"

Yes. But no base 6.

> or Nama of the Khoi-San macrophylum (paired numerals):
>
> "3" !nona
> "6" !nani

Yes. But no base 6.

> These were just formal, typological examples I would like you to present, if
> possible.
>
> 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.

Doesn't this exhaust all the logical possibilities? (Except perhaps numerals
created by aliens from outer space).

/Harald