Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

Yes. I was the misunderstander, Sorry. Would be interested in compiling a
database of attested systems. The wuestion of most common base has
been in the scientific litterature at least since 1787, and everyone
has propagated that base-10 is the most common system - it probably
is - but noone has published a count (let alone a stratified one).
/Harald

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, petusek wrote:

> It seems that we misunderstand each other. I've never claimed I'd known a
> base-6 system, not me. My body-tally examples were just "formal", i.e. to
> show you what kind of example I would've liked you to give me :-). Thank you
> for Ndom :-) Exxxactly what I wanted to see! :-) If you'd read thoroughly
> what I'd have written, you wouldn't have written the funny "Yes. But no base
> 6" reply so many times - why, didn't I write "thus not on 6's" (Yuma),
> "paired numerals" (Nama) or wasn't it simply clear from the examples (about
> which I had written they'd be or had been "formal", i.e. as for the "form"
> of the example) that I was aware of the systems no being base-6 ones??? I
> might be a crazy fool, if so, I'm sorry for that.
>
> As far as my last paragraph is concerned, yes, the listing might exhaust
> "Terrestrial" systems ;-) (as intended)...
>
> It would certainly be interesting to make a database of all the systems and
> to cathegorize them properly, and perhaps, make all that stuff available
> on-line, so if you'd like to participate...
>
> Nevertheless, we shall be careful and aware of the fact that this is, again,
> an out-of-topic point! ;-)
>
> Petusek
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harald Hammarström
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 8:32 PM
> Subject: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>