Re: Do Eskimos count like New Guineans?

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:24:03 -0800 (PST), richard01
<richardparker01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:7ff7bb89-407a-43f3-9e4c-a4bb7c399492@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

On 12 Jan, 06:47, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 12, 5:06 am, richard01 <richardparke...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

That is what I am trying to do, with just one set of
related words, in each language. It's no Grand,
pre-conceived Theory

Well, it's one big and apparently immovable
pre-conceived assumption.

No, it's not. It's gone from the germ of an idea,
reinforced by every bit of evidence that I've found
since.

But it's the one immovable, in that you won't consider
the alternative.

well you can either consider that numbering systems
evolved, using widespread and observable rules, or you
can believe that a perfect abstract system existed fully
blown in *PAn and *POc and that any differences from that
'perfect state' must therefore be new, but regressive,
inventions.

'Perfect'? 'Regressive'? My, my.

So how did certain groups newly invent exactly the same
counting method as Eskimos did? Why do certain Vanuatu
groups still count their toes between 10 and 20?

Are they remarkably coincidental new inventions, or are
they relicts of older systems, as I believe?

What's remarkable about body-part reckoning?

[...]

Brian
.