Re: Numbers from 1-10

Doug Dee wrote:

>In a message dated 8/28/2003 11:20:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>christopher.bates@NTLWORLD.COM writes:
>
>
>
>
>>What happens if your language doesn't stretch to 10 by design? I don't
>>have a language like that, but people always mention (I'm not sure if
>>its a myth or not) some languages, especially aborigonal ones, which
>>supposedly don't have words for higher numbers.... I wonder if it really
>>is true, or another peice of information along the likes of "Eskimos
>>have lots of words for snow" which derives from the fact that the
>>language is poly-synthetic, so there are lots of words, but not lots of
>>roots that mean snow.
>>
>>
>
>
>In _Australian Languages_, RMW Dixon says "Most Australian languages lack a
>separate class of numbers.  There are generally reported to be forms meaning
>'one', 'two' -- also sometimes 'three' -- in the adjective class."
>
>So, if we can believe him (and I think we can), numbers tend not to go above
>three in Australian languages.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
I haven't read the book in question, so thanks for the info. :D I find
it interesting.. I have this wonderful book entitled "the history of
numbers" or something like that that talks about how numbers have been
used in languages throughout history and how different languages do
things... since it focus on the development of number systems though, it
isn't clear from it if anyone is still using a number system that
doesn't easily stretch to large numbers. Since I'm back to conlanging
again I might restrict my current lang to one with only a small number
of numbers... its got single, dual, triple (trial???) and plural
numbers, so I guess I could just add adjectives meaning one, two, three,
many to be emphatic about the number and then leave it at that...
perhaps allow as someone else said, things like "four and two" to mean
six etc...