Re: Do Eskimos count like New Guineans?

On 7 Jan, 09:16, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

He not only wants to revise the linguistic subgrouping to fit this
evolutionary scheme, but, like previous diffusionists, he will
(re)write the settlement history in obedience to it


The order of development of those mathematical constructs has
implications for the genetic descent of the languages using them.
But,
if the number systems are de-coupled from the remainder of the basic
lexicon, and considered as a quite separate evolving process, then
the
separate, and different, diffusion of number systems and morphemes is
the only alternative to the genetic descents revealed by phonological
and grammatical analysis, implying migrations or leapfrog
settlements.

The archaeology



hardly gets a mention, though it fails to support either his claim
that Vanuatu and New Caledonia were settled a lot earlier than
Polynesia, nor that Maori left central Polynesia before Rapanui.


It fails to support my claim because no-one has yet found a
definitive
'first settlement date' almost anywhere east of Buka, in the Solomon
Islands.

The Lapita type site is in New Caledonia, but the earliest dated
Lapita is from Mussau. Mussau now uses a fully 'consensus PAn'
numbering system, (one of the very few in that area) but its dialect,
Emira, until recently, used a 6-9=5+x system. Mussau sits on its
ownsome in the St Matthias grouping, because no linguist has yet
grouped it with anything else.


New Caledonia (with reservations, because I don't yet have more than
very basic data) hasn't a single number system that obviously
reflects
'consensus PAn' except in numbers 1 and 2. If you're a comparative
methodist, all the other number words (surviving now) in New
Caledonia are 'innovations', and the ones (surviving now) in Mussau
'must be earlier', because they reflect *PAn almost absolutely.
Looking at nothing other than the development of the numbering
systems, the New Caledonian/Mussau genetic gradient shows just the
opposite. I'm deliberately avoiding bringing in Vanuatu, because I
don't want to mix with you until I get my facts 100% on board ;-)


The



whole idea of number names being "evolved" in some central
mathematical workshop and then diffused across half the planet by
(otherwise unnecessary) voyages of enlightenment seems very
improbable.


And quite ridiculous. But not at all ridiculuous to suppose that many
different people, worldwide, built up their own numbering systems
using the same basic ingredients (fingers, toes, and persons). That
was the purpose of my highlighting the development of almost exactly
the same numbering word-structure in Eskimo and New Guinea (and
Austronesian). The surprise, to me, was the apparent resemblance
between the Eskimo and Austronesian roots for 1,2 and 5. But that
happens with Australian Aboriginal languages as well.

The arguments for hyper-diffusion of numbering systems have almost
all
been discredited. The Babylonian 60-base system has been claimed to
influence number systems as far apart as France and Ekari/Kaupahu
(TNG, Wissel Lakes, New Guinea). But both have been shown to be
independent.


regards


Richard




.

Loading