Numbers as "Core Vocabulary" (was IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics)

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

Numbers are one of the very WORST things to look at in order to make even a
preliminary decision about relationship.  The main problem with numbers
(other than two and three) are that in the majority of hunter-gatherer
societies, they are intimately tied to the way that fingers are used in
counting.  Throughout Native North America there are variants of systems
like this:  'one' = 'finger'; 'two' = two; 'three' = 'one down' (i.e., one
finger besides the thumb is still not raised); 'four' = 'all up'; 'five' =
'open', 'palm' or 'hand'; 'six' = 'two threes'; 'seven' = 'five + two';
'eight' = 'two palms'; 'nine' = 'one missing'; 'ten' = 'whole'.  There are
variations on this including whether one raises fingers to count or lowers
them, whether and when the thumbs are included, whether the count starts on
the right hand or on the left, etc.  As this number/finger systems starts to
break down, other words can be borrowed or developed internally to fill the
gaps, but the very unstable nature of counting means that number words
should NOT be included in any list of "core vocabulary".

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)