Language, time and the Amondawa

[jess tauber]

This reminds me a little of the way Yahgan deals with number. The only true numerals are 1,2,3, matching the singular, dual, trial marking in the grammar. Yet 'number' is pervasive throughout the (classical 19th C.) language. Number higher than 3 tends to rely on ranges rather than specific positions, and even here it seems the system differentiated whether the value was arrived at by addition, by subtraction, or existed neutrally. Anatomically based terms could be ambiguous (for ex. 5 and 10 relative to the fingers of the hands). There were several different terms for 'halves' differentiating how the halves were physically produced.

Time as an abstract notion was also absent- a year was a winter, and terms for spring also occur used for new occurrences, so perhaps the beginnings of an abstract system? It is a question as to whether consolidated 'day' and 'month' terms existed abstractly except in the minds of the missionaries who recorded and described the language- the language divided day/night into different salient parts, and the lunar cycle also. Names for seasons were usually attached to the events transpiring within them- crab season, canoe-bark season, and so on.

Color terms in Yahgan were generally binary. The second term defined darkness, whiteness, or reddishness, and then the first acted to more precisely specify it. So yellowish-red was aia-lush, or bile-red. So the underlying set is just black, white, red.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics at earthlink.net