zompist bboard

Vijay wrote:

Richard W wrote:I can't find any sign of the English sheep-counting numbers of Brythonic origins in the file.

But are these any more notable than numbers in any non-standard dialect of English/Anglic variety/whatever indigenous to Britain? So far, all there is there is English and Scots (and that too apparently only one variety of Scots); there's no Anglo-Cornish numbers or Geordie numbers or whatever.

Yes. (a) Though their users were English speakers, the numbers were of Brythonic origin, not Germanic origin. (At least, I assume there is no surviving continuity of use, and the system is now defunct except as a novelty.) (b) They're of substrate origin, with no known prestige to back them. These two features make them quite noteworthy.

At least, I assume they're noteworthy. We seem to have a similar but isolated survival of Irish numbers in Wales, though in that case the Irish seem to have formed the political elite. Are there other such counting systems?

A valid objection might be that the numbers were used for actual counting, but possibly not for just reporting the actual numbers. An analogy would be the paper and pencil system of counting that makes groups of 5 strokes - the symbols have been deemed not to be proper characters and therefore encodable within Unicode. For example, I don't think one would say, "We have pethera-a-dek sheep" (= 'We have 14 sheep').

Sorry, I don't think I phrased my question too well; I realize that these numerals are interesting and unusual. What I mean is basically if you're going to include that, then why not include numbers from other varieties of British English as well?

I will incorporate these soon— right now I'm working on updating the sources page.

As a general note of encouragement, pedantry about symbols is welcomed. If you see weird character choices, they're either because a) the source I found was old— often the only source I had was from the 19th century; or b) I was doing the best I could with Mac Word 5.1. Now of course I can do anything Unicode supports.

(Though to answer one question, the acutes in Old English are because that's what the OED has. And Tolkien! As a corollary, all those acutes in LOTR are probably long vowels.)

Xephyr wrote:Some of your Siouan examples use pretty awful and (I'd guess) unhelpful orthographies, which I'm guessing you must've gotten from some older sources. Here are some better ones:

Code: Select all

Chiwere  	iyáŋki	núwe	  dáñi	  dówe	thátaⁿ	 šágwe	  šáhma	   grerábrį	šánke	  grébraⁿ
Kansa		 míⁿxci	noⁿbá	 yábliⁿ	tóba	sátaⁿ	  shápe	  péyoⁿba 	kiadóba	 sháⁿka	 glébla
Quapaw		mį́xti	 nǫpá	  dábnį	 tówa	sáttą	  šáppe	  ppénǫpa	 ppedábnį	šą́kka	  kdébną
Tutelo		nǫ́:sa:	nǫ́:pa:	lá:ni	 tó:pa  kisą́:ha	aká:spe:  sa:kó:mį:  palá:ni	 ḳasą́:hka  pú:čka

Another one: Mandan. From the Mandan Language website (crosschecked with the Comparative Siouan Dictionary).

1 mą́xaną
2 nų́p (CSD variant: nų́pa)
3 ną́ąmįnį (CSD: rą́·wįrį)
4 tóop (CSD: tó·pa)
5 kixų́ųh (CSD: kíxų)
6 kíimą (CSD: kí·wą)
7 kúupa
8 téetoki
9 mą́xpe
10 pirák

Also, for Tsimshian, the first vowel in t'apxoolt should be underlined.

Also, Crow (from Randolph Graczyk (2007), A Grammar of Crow):

1. hawáta
2. dúupa
3. dáawii
4. shoopá
5. chiaxxú
6. akaawá
7. sáhpua
8. dúupahpi
9. hawátahpi
10. pilaká

Here are some numbers in languages of the Strickland region:

East Strickland languages:

Konai: ta-no͟͡u, bolo̱u̱, komadia, bolo̱u̱ bolo̱u̱, houyosi (1 2 3 4 5)
Samo: helẽu, bẽau, behelɔ, bẽauili bẽauili, debe helɔfo, bẽauili bẽauili bẽauili, debe helɔfo bẽau (1 2 3 4 5 6 10)
Odoodee: hɛdɛˈpɛ, ˈbɑkɑdʲɔ, ˈbɑkɑdʲɔ hɛdɛˈbɛ, ˈbɑkɑdʲɔ ˈbɑkɑdʲɔ, de ˈtʲɑdo (1 2 3 4 5)
Kubo: sesa, sesamɔe, kɔmae, dɔsɔu, hau, wãɪ̃, dɪu, dɔma, dɔbe, ɔɪ (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (body-part system)
Fembe: sisafe, sisama, kõma, dɔso (1 2 3 4)
or: sesafeng, sesame, kama, dosso, hou, weyay, dyo, doumay, dobey, ey (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (body-part system)

Bosavi languages:

Bedamuni: age, ageadu, osoda, biadu, bi, gafe, lobofasele, godo, sesege, nabu (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (body-part system)
Onobasulu: ɑ'ɡɛlɛ, ɑɡɑ'nɛbo, o'solo, bi'nibo, bi, 'kabe, 'domo, 'aiyo, ɑɡo'folo, 'dɑbulu (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (body-part system)
Aimele: aɡɾɪ, aɡɾɪwɛɾi, bɪnibi, bɪnisusu, saːmi, dɪɡaːɸi, donu, oː, aɡotaː (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (body-part system)
Kasua: semetei, elipei, usulupe, pinipe, piipe, tekapeipe, tomoipe, oloipe, akotaipe, talo semetei (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) (adapted body-part system)

Vijay wrote:Sorry, I don't think I phrased my question too well; I realize that these numerals are interesting and unusual. What I mean is basically if you're going to include that, then why not include numbers from other varieties of British English as well?

A line may have to be drawn somewhere. For example, there are only 3 Frisian lists, but according to the source document, Andrew Howey has another 17 Frisian lists.

Now, recording an English list for each accent is probably not useful. However, recording some non-Anglian English dialects might be interesting - the only non-Anglian dialect recorded is Old English.

There are some other specialised counting systems around. There's the sexagenary cycle of years, built up out of a ten year cycle and a 12 year cycle (the 'Chinese zodiac'). Now the year of the ten year cycle ('heavenly stem' in the Chinese version) is just denoted by a Pali number in one Thai form of the system - but of course Thai Pali numbers are not quite the same as Pali Pali numbers, or even necessarily a mechanical transposition. That makes these numbers a possible candidate for inclusion. (There's also the complexity of compounds being used instead of plain numbers.) I can see counter-arguments. Days of the week are not listed as a way of counting from one to seven.

polish isn't in bold

For Ofo and Biloxi, you (or your source) seem to have used the Dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo Languages by Dorsey and Swanton. The Biloxi entries for 7 and 8 are wrong-- they're identical to the entries for 2 and 3. The reason for this is probably because 7 and 8 in Biloxi are derived from 2 and 3, and are listed under those entries, and so if you look up "seven" and "eight" in the English-to-Biloxi section of the dictionary (which is more of an index) they just direct you to the words for 2 and 3-- you have to look at the entry in the Biloxi-to-English section to find out the actual words for 7 and 8. The rest of the numbers on your page are correct, except the diacritics are missing or messed up.

Here they are exactly as they appear in the dictionary (n.b. <ˊ> is an accent marker, not a glottal stop apostrophe or an acute accent that failed to combine):

Biloxi
1 soⁿsaˊ
2 noⁿpaˊ
3 daˊni
4 topaˊ
5 ksaⁿ / ksaˊni
6 akŭxpĕˊ
7 naⁿˊpahudiˊ
8 daˊnhudiˊ
9 tckanĕˊ
10 ohi

Ofo
1 nûˊfha
2 nuˊpha / nuᵐˊpha
3 taˊni
4 toˊpa
5 kifaⁿ
6 akạpĕˊ
7 fạˊkumĭ
8 pạˊtạnĭ
9 kĭˊctạcga
10 ĭftạptạⁿˊ

You may or may not prefer, however, to use the reconstructed forms used in the Comparative Siouan Dictionary. They use a more modern spelling, and use comparative data to posit some long or nasal vowels that Dorsey & Swanton might have missed. They also disagree with D&S re stress in some words.

Biloxi
1 sǫsa
2 nǫpa
3 dánį
4 tópa
5 ksą(-ni)
6 akəxpé
7 ną́pa-hudi
8 [not given]
9 čkané
10 [not given]

Ofo
1 nǫfhá
2 nų·p-
3 tá·nį
4 tó·pa
5 kifą́
6 akəpé
7 fə́kumi
8 [not given]
9 kíštəška
10 iftəptə̢́

(that last letter is schwa+acute+nasalhook, in case it doesn't show up right)

The Comparative Siouan Dictionary also gives one number entry for Saponi:

10 -bosque


Some of your Caddoan looks weird, too. Here's the Pawnee according to A Dictionary of Skiri Pawnee by Douglas Parks & Lula Nora Pratt

Pawnee
1 asku
2 pitku
3 tawit
4 kskiitiʾiks
5 suhuks
6 kskiksaapic
7 pitkusiksaapic
8 tawiksaapic
9 ruksiriiwaara
10 ruksiriʾ

Arikara, according to the American Indian Studies Research Institute Dictionary Database:

Arikara
1 áxku
2 pítkux
3 táwit
4 čiitíʾiš
5 šíhux
6 tšaápis
7 tawišaapiswaána
8 tawišaápis
9 nooxiniiwaána
10 nooxíniʾ

The Caddo should get updated too. There is no dictionary of Caddo that I know of, but I e-mailed Wallace Chafe who is working on one, and he might be able to assist. Maybe. Fingers crossed.

For Algonquian (mostly following the order on the Numbers page):

PROTO-ALGONQUIAN: *nekwetwi / *pe:šekwi, *nyi:šwi, *neʔθwi, *nye:wi, *nya:θanwi, *nekwetwa:ši(ka), *nyi:šwa:ši(ka), *neʔθwa:ši(ka), *ša:nka, *metaθa / *meta:tahθwi - the endings on the numerals from six - ten have varying reflexes and have clearly gone through a lot of analogical reshaping in many daughters, so I don't think there's a full consensus on the exact reconstructions. These are taken from Richard Rhodes and David Costa, "The History of Algonquian Number Words," in Essays in Algonquian, Catawban and Siouan Linguistics in Memory of Frank T. Siebert, Jr., ed. Blair Rudes and David Costa, 2003. (Except where otherwise noted, this chapter is also the main source for the numbers in individual Algonquian languages below.)

BLACKFOOT: in the modern standard orthography: ni’tókska, nááto’ka, niiwókska, niisó, nisitó, náao, ihkitsíka, náániso, piihkssó, kiipó [source: Donald Frantz (2009), Blackfoot Grammar, 2nd ed.]

CHEYENNE: correct as given

ARAPAHO: céésey, niis, nééso, yéin, yóó3on, níítootox, níísootox, néésootox, 3ío’tox, béteetox [additional source: Andrew Cowell and Alonzo Moss Sr. (2008) The Arapaho Language -- in the standard orthography, <3> = /θ/ and <c> = /tʃ/]

can add: GROS VENTRE: /cɛːθéiʔ, níːθʔɛ, nɛ̂ːθʔɛ, jɛ́ːnʔɛ, jɔːtɔ́nʔi, néicɔːtɔsʔi, níːθɔːtɔ́sʔi, nɛ̂ːθɔːtɔsʔi, ʔɛːnhɛːbétɔːtɔsʔi, bítɔːtɔsʔi/

can add: NAWATHINEHENA: <tcäⁿcilaha’³, nīsähä’, nahaha’, niabaha’, niotanähä’, neixθioti, nīciotaⁿ, nexiotähähäⁿ, cioxtähähäⁿ, maxtoxtahähäⁿ>

MENOMINEE: nekot, nīs, naeqniw, nīw, nianan, nekūtuasetah, nōhekan, suasek, sākāēw, metātah

"Western Ojibwe" (rename to SOUTHWESTERN OJIBWE): correct except 7 should be niizhwaaswi and 8 should be (n)ishwaaswi

"Algonkin" (rename to OLD ALGONQUIN and move up): <peiik, ninch, nissoui, neou, naran, nikotouassou, ninchouassou, chankassou, mitassou> [taken from Father Louis Nicolas' Grammaire Algonquine, ou des sauvages de l'Amerique septentrionelle (c. 1674) -- Old Algonquin did have several differences from modern Algonquin, though it may not be necessary to include it in the database. It looks like there were some transcription errors from the original manuscript (which can be found here if anyone is curious - the numbers are on pg. 43 of the document, labeled "40" in the UR corner)]

can add: ALGONQUIN (Ojibwean): pejig, nìj, niswi, new, nànan, nigodwàs(w)i, nìjwàs(w)i, nicwàs(w)i, jàgas(w)i / jàkadisì, midàswi

can add: OJI-CREE (Ojibwean): peshik, niish, nihsin, niiwin / niiyaan, naanan, ninkotwaahso, niishwaahso, nihshwaahso, shaankahso, mitaahso
[edit:] and in the native writing system: ᐯᔑᒃ, ᓃᔥ, ᓂᐦᓯᓐ, ᓃᐧᐃᓐ / ᓃᔮᓐ, ᓈᓇᓐ, ᓂᓐᑯᐧᑖᐦᓱ, ᓃᐧᔖᐦᓱ, ᓂᐦᐧᔖᐦᓱ, ᔖᓐᑲᐦᓱ, ᒥᑖᐦᓱ

can add: SAULTEAUX (Ojibwean): pêšik, nîšin, nihsin / nihso, nîwin, niyânan, nikotwâhso, nîšwâhso, (ni)hšwâhso / ayinânêw, šânkahso, mitâhso

can add: ODAWA (Ojibwean): bezhig, niizh, nswi, niiwin, naanan / naanin, ngodwaaswi, niizhwaaswi, nshwaaswi, zhaangswi, mdaaswi

POTAWATOMI: ngot, nish, nswe, nyéw, nyanen, ngodwadso, no’ek, shwadso, zhak, mdadso

FOX: correct except for #10 should be meta:swi

SAUK: nekoti, nîshwi, nethwi, nyêwi, nyânanwi, (ne)kotwâshika, nôhika, (ne)shwâshika, shâka, metâthwi [source: http://www.native-languages.org/numbers ... umbers.htm, with a couple minor adjustments]

KICKAPOO: nekoti, niiswi, neθwi, niei, niananwi, nekotwaasika, noohika, neswaasika, saaka, metaaθwi [source (partly): Paul Voorhis (1967) Kickapoo Grammar (PhD diss.), and with reference to https://mpi-lingweb.shh.mpg.de/numeral/Kickapoo.htm]

SHAWNEE: nekoti, niishwi, nthwi, niyeewi, niyaalanwi, nekotwa’thwi, niishwa’thwi, nthwaashikthwi, chaakatthwi, meta’thwi [additional source: http://shawneelanguage.homestead.com/numbers.html]

MIAMI-ILLINOIS (combine into one record): nkoti, niišwi, nihswi, niiwi, yaalanwi, kaakaathswi, swaahteethswi, palaani, nkotimeneehki, mataathswi [additional source: https://myaamiadictionary.org/dictionar ... type=entry]

"Cree" (rename to PLAINS CREE): pêyak, nîso, nisto, nêw, niyânan, nikotwâsik, têpakohp, ayînânêw / iyânânêw, kêkâ-mitâtaht, mitâtaht [additional source: Cree numerals partly from Marguerite MacKenzie (1980), Towards a Dialectology of Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi (PhD diss.)]

can add: MOOSE CREE: pêyak, nîšo, nisto, nêw / nêyaw, niyâlan, nikotwâs, nîswâs, niyânânêw, šâkitât, mitâht

can add: NORTHERN EAST CREE: paayikw, niishu, nishtu, naau, niyaayu, (ni)kutwaashch, niishwaashch, (ni)yaanaanaau, paayikushtaau, mitaahtu [additional source for East Cree: http://dictionary.eastcree.org/]

can add: SOUTHERN EAST CREE: peyakw, niishu, nishtu, neu, niyaayin, nikutwaas, niis(h)waashch, niyaanaaneu, peyakushteu, mitaaht

"Montagnais" (suggest renaming to INNU, which has become the more common term): peikᵘ, nishᵘ, nishtᵘ, neu, patetat, kutuasht, nishuasht, nishuaush, peikushteu, kutunnu [additional source: http://dictionary.innu-aimun.ca/Words - there's a great deal of phonological diversity within Innu; these are in the standard Innu orthography, which seems to be in very common use by speakers]

NASKAPI: Correct as given (for Western Naskapi)

(I suggest removing "Québec" Cree, which is not a term used to refer to any specific dialects; eastern Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi dialects are divided into East Cree, Naskapi, and Innu [=Montagnais], all of which are spoken within Quebec)


Eastern Algonquian:

can add: PROTO-EASTERN ALGONQUIAN: *nəkwət / *pe:šəkw, *ni:š, *nəhx, *nye:w, *na:ran, *nəkwətwa:š(i:k), *ni:šwa:š(i:k) / *ta:pawa:š, *nəhxwa:š(i:k), *pe:šəko:nkən, *mətara / *pe:yakw

MI'KMAQ: newt, tápu, síst, néw, nán, asɨkom, lluiknɨk, ukumuljin, peskunatek, mtlɨn / newtinskáq [additional source: http://www.firstnationhelp.com/ali/lexicon.pdf]

(I suggest removing "Souriquoian", which is an old and less accurate rendering of Mi'kmaq)

WESTERN ABENAKI: bazegw, niz, nas, yaw, nôlan, negwedôz, dôbawôz, nsôzek, noliwi, medala

can add: PENOBSCOT (basically = EASTERN ABENAKI): pèsəkʷ, nis, nahs, yew, pálenəskʷ, nə̀kʷətαs, tὰpawαs, nssὰsəkk?, noli, mə̀tala

NARRAGANSETT: <nquít / pâwsuck, neèsse, nìsh, yòh, napànna, (na)qútta, énada, shwósuck, paskúgit, piùck>

"Natick" (move up - part of the same dialect continuum as Narr. [Southern New England Algonquian], and rename MASSACHUSETT): <nugqut / pasuk, nees, nushwe / nish, yau, napanna, nukquttuh, nesausuk / enatta, nishwô(suk), pas(u)koogun, piog>

LOUP A (move up): <nengȣt, ninz, chȣi, iau, napale, negȣtensik, ninzensik, chȣensik, peskȣghin, paiakȣᵉ>

(I suggest removing "Loup B", which probably does not represent a single language, but rather words collected from speakers of several different Algonquian varieties)

MALISEET-PASSAMAQUODDY (combine): pesq / neqt, nis / tapu, nihi / ’sis, new, nan, kamahcin, oluwikonok, ukomolcin, esqonatek, ’qotinsk [additional sources: Robert M. Leavitt (1997) Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, http://pmportal.org/sites/default/files/Numbers.pdf and http://www.native-languages.org/numbers ... umbers.htm -- none of the sources I have available distinguish between Maliseet and Passamaquoddy, so I don't know if the different terms for 1-3 represent dialect differences (as the current version of the Numbers page implies) or not]

MOHEGAN-PEQUOT (move up): <nĕkwŭ´t, nîs, ch’wî, iâw, nîpâ(u), k’dŭsk, nîzu’sh, ch’wî-ŏ´sk, bōzûkû´gŏn, bâ’ĭŏg> (in reconstituted/reconstructed Modern Mohegan these are written: nuqut, nis, shwi, yáw, nupáw, qutôsk, nisôsk, shwôsk, pásukokun, páyaq) [source for "Modern Mohegan" - essentially a semi-conlang = A Modern Mohegan Dictionary (2006)]

QUIRIPI (move up): <pasukq, nes-, nash-, youw-, nàppa-, nukkuddask-/akkòmmedj-, nesausak, swank-, pásakogun-, paíák->

UNQUACHOG (move up): <naqúut, nées, nus, yauh, napáa, (na)cúttah, túmpawa, swah, nώre, payac>

POWHATAN: correct except #4 should be <yowgh>

UNAMI: phonemically /kwətːi, niːʃːa, naxa, neːwa, paleːnaxk, kwətːaːʃ, niːʃːaːʃ, xaːʃ, peːʃkunk, telən/, spelled kwëti, niša, naxa, newa, palenàxk, kwëtaš, nišaš, xaš, pèškunk, tèlën, but I don't know how commonly used this orthography is [additional source: http://www.talk-lenape.org/]

"Minsi" (rename MUNSEE): phonemically /nkwə́tĭ, níːʃa, nxáh, néːwa, náːlan, nkwə́taːʃ, níːʃaːʃ, xáːʃ, nóːliː, wíːmpat/, spelled ngwut, níisha, nxáh, néewa, náalan, ngwútaash, níishaash, xáash, nóolii, wíimbat, but again, I don't know how commonly used this orthography is

(I suggest removing "Zeisberger 1808", which is just an older, less accurate recording of Unami.)

MAHICAN (move up): <ngutá, nīsa, náxa, nā́wa, nṓnən, ngutəⁿs, tɔⁿpawɔnⁿs, nhɔ́nsō / xánsō, nā́nīwí, mdə́n̄ət>

NANTICOKE: <nick-quit, na-eez, nis(whu), yaugh(whu), nup-pai-a, [6?], my-yay-wah, [8?], passa-conque, mittah!> [note: Rhodes & Costa do not provide the Nanticoke terms for "six" or "eight", and I have not been able to access any of the original sources - just unreliable transcriptions of them - so I don't know whether the forms on the Numbers page now are correct]

PAMLICO: correct as given


Language statuses: "Old Algonquin" (if retained) should be marked as dead; Gros Ventre, Proto-Eastern-Algonquian, and Penobscot are dead; and as of a few years ago, Unami is dead as well


Other comments: Algic should not be grouped in with "Mosan". I don't know of any linguists (other than Ruhlen types) who accept Almosan these days. (I don't know how well-regarded "Mosan" itself is, but in any case it's certainly not fully demonstrated.) Beothuk's status is unclear; it may be Algic, but is so poorly attested, and the attestations themselves of such poor quality, that most Algonquianists feel it's impossible to know. I would class it as an isolate, which is the position most Algonquianists take to be safe. Kutenai is not Algic; some people have suggested it might be distantly related, but there's no real good evidence for it aside from some grammatical similarities that are likely due to contact. Speaking of Kutenai:


KUTENAI: ʔuk̓i, ʔa·s, qaǂsa, xa·¢a, yi·ku, ʔinmisa, wist̕aǂa, wuxa·¢a, qaykit̕wu, ʔit̕wu [source: http://www.firstvoices.com/en/Ktunaxa/welcome - and yes, that is the standard Kutenai orthography]

Richard W wrote:

dyolf wrote:Under Welsh there is listed a set for "Cardiganshire". After doing some asking around these are simply Irish numbers written using Welsh orthography and they're not used in Cardiganshire. They were used there around the 17C by Irish workers but everyone there today use the Welsh un - deg.

Have you read the paper describing them - "An old system of numeration found in South Cardiganshire" in Transactions and archaeological record, Cardiganshire Antiquarian Society Vol. 3 (1924), p. 9-19?

While the numbers do look Irish, the preferred belief is that they hark back to when the area was under Irish control. Of course, the system was moribund by the time it was recorded.

I can't find any sign of the English sheep-counting numbers of Brythonic origins in the file. I believe these should be recorded under English, just as Japanese numbers of Chinese origin are arranged under Japanese (as 'Sino-Japanese').

Since that paper was published (in 1924) scholarly opinion has moved far away from the Goidelic survival hypothesis.

You may as well remove the Liotan numbers, since they're out of date and will be overhauled at some point in the not-too-distant future.

alice wrote:You may as well remove the Liotan numbers, since they're out of date and will be overhauled at some point in the not-too-distant future.

When will be that not-too-distant future when we'll see the updated versions of Liotan and other Sunovian languages?

Japhug Rgyalrong: (source)
1. ci
2. ʁnɯz
3. χsɯm
4. kɯβde
5. kɯmŋu
6. kɯtʂɤɣ
7. kɯɕnɯz
8. kɯrcat
9. kɯngɯt
10. sqi

"Gyarung (Jiarong)" isn't a language (there are several Rgyalrong languages and Rgyalrong of course has to be distinguished from Rgyalrongic, which includes Khroskyabs and Horpa, and Horpa consists of at least three mutually unintelligible varieties), and I'm not sure which language what you have represents.

For Tangut, Miyake's vowel-agnostic notation could be used.

Puxi Qiang: (source)
1. a
2. n̩
3. χsi
4. dzə
5. ʁuɑ
6. χtʂu
7. ʂən
8. tʂʰa
9. ʐguə
10. χadʑy

"Yi (Lolo)" is probably not Standard Nuosu, since lye isn't a possible syllable there -- the syllable structure is strictly CV. The numerals of Standard Nuosu are: (from Gerner's grammar)
1. cyp
2. nyip
3. suo
4. ly
5. nge
6. fut
7. shyp
8. hxit
9. ggu
10. ci

hwhatting wrote:You have the right Cyrillic for Kazakh "7", but the transcription is wrong - Kazakh "ж" is /ʒ/, so it ought to be žeti, not *jeti.

Turkish-like transliteration is not terribly uncommon for Turkic languages written in Cyrillic, and <j> is /Z/ in Turkic. See here.

(In Chechen, it's not uncommon to see s-cedilla for /S/ and z-caron for /Z/, since <j> is occasionally used for pharyngealization and the epiglottal stop.)

Some more stuff, from South America. Several languages from the Nadahup family* are broken up into distinct groups in the Numbers list currently -- understandably, since they were essentially undocumented until the last few decades. So, the constituent members are HUP (listed as Hupda under "Puinavean"), YUHUP (which is listed under "Maku" as a synonym for "Macu", but the numbers given are not Yuhup, and I assume are actually those of a different language also called "Maku"), DÂW (listed under "Maku"), and NADËB (listed under "Puinavean"). KAKUA and NUKAK (listed as Cacua and Waviare=Nukak under "Puinavean") may be related too, but this has not been proven yet (Kakua and Nukak are still virtually undocumented). Puinavé has also been suggested to be related, but again this has not yet been demonstrated.

*(originally called "Makú," but that's an ethnic slur in the region, and also applies to several other languages, so linguists have moved away from it; I like Patty Epps' proposed "Nadahup," which Wikipedia also follows)

SO...

NADAHUP FAMILY
where there are numerous possible phrases to express a higher number, I count that as lacking a given numeral. In many cases the speakers most commonly borrow Portuguese higher numerals anyway. when a numeral has several phonological variants, I give the most phonologically "fused" one - i.e. the latest stage in its evolution from a descriptive phrase

NADËB:
1. šæt / šæd
2. pɔwɔp
3. tamawɔ́b

DÂW [source: Silvana Martins (2004) Fonologia e Gramática Dâw]
1. mˀɛ̃ʔ
2. tɯ́mˀ
3. mutwáp

HUP (downriver)
1. ʔayǔp
2. koʔǎp
3. mɔ́twaʔǎp
4. (hi)bab’ní
5. ʔædapṹh

HUP (upriver)
1. ʔæ̌p
2. kaʔǎp
3. bab’ pã̌
4. bab’ ní
5. ʔæp d’apṹh

YUHUP
1. cã́h / cãhyã́pã
2. b’ə̌ʔ
3. mɔdɨ́g-w’ǎp
4. bab-ní-w’ǎp
5. cãh-pṍh-w’ǎp
10. b’ə̌ʔ-pṍh-w’ǎp

(sources: Patience Epps (2006) "Growing a Numeral System: The Historical Development of Numerals in an Amazonian Language Family" Diachronica 23:2; and Patience Epps (2008) A Grammar of Hup)


A few other numeral systems are provided by Epps (2006):

TUCANO (Tukanoan/Tucanoan family -- now more often spelled TUKANO):
1. niʔkâ
2. pɨɨá
3. iʔtiá
4. baʔpâ-ɾitise
5. niʔkâmukã

TARIANA (Maipurean family -- note: misspelled as "Tariano" on the Numbers page):
1. pa:-
2. ñama- / yama-
3. madali-
4. kephunipe
5. pa(:)-kapi

Whimemsz wrote:FOX: correct except for #10 should be meta:swi

Whoops, I take that back, there's one other error -- the numbers 3 and 4 are also switched (3 = neswi, 4 = nye:wi)

Xephyr wrote:The Caddo should get updated too. There is no dictionary of Caddo that I know of, but I e-mailed Wallace Chafe who is working on one, and he might be able to assist. Maybe. Fingers crossed.

And here they are.

1 'wísts'i'
2 bit
3 dáháw'
4 híwí'
5 di:sik'an
6 dán:kih
7 bíssikah
8 dáhàw:sikah
9 híwí:sikah
10 bínáy'ah

dyolf wrote:Since that paper was published (in 1924) scholarly opinion has moved far away from the Goidelic survival hypothesis.

What do you mean by 'Goidelic survival hypothesis'? It sounds like a theory that some areas had remained Q-Celtic, rather than being Q-Celtic because of an invasion from Ireland. I'm not disputing that these 'Cardiganshire' numerals are of Irish origin - it's the date that's of greater interest.

WeepingElf wrote:

alice wrote:You may as well remove the Liotan numbers, since they're out of date and will be overhauled at some point in the not-too-distant future.

When will be that not-too-distant future when we'll see the updated versions of Liotan and other Sunovian languages?

When all of the following are complete:

- my vocabulary handling program is in a workable state
- I'm happy with the relevant roots and sound changes

Unfortunately, I can't be more precise, although the second probably won't be too long after the first.

A couple more:

YUROK (Algic) is now dead. "Nine" seems to have come out weird in the Unicode conversion process -- by the orthography used for the other numbers, it should be kɹ:mik’. Apparently the more recent form for "two people" is niʔiƚ (per Andrew Garrett (2014) Basic Yurok Grammar)

CAVINEÑA (Panoan - misspelled "Cavineŋa") [source: Antoine Guillaume (2008) A Grammar of Cavineña]
1. peadya
2. beta
3. kimisha
4. pushi
5. pishika
6. shukuta
7. pakaruku
8. kimisakaruku
9. puskuruku
10. tunka

Whew... the sources page is now updated as well.

I think I've incorporated everyone's suggestions above. Thank you!

On the sources page y'all are credited with your ZBB name; if you want me to use your real name instead, drop me a PM or e-mail.

I must have spent an hour today tracking down where I got those 'Gyarung' numbers. I thought it was in Jakob Dempsey's dissertation, which is very hard to search. He mentions various Gyarung languages but I couldn't relate them to the modern languages. Finally I found my original source— Grierson's 1923 survey. So I was happy to get rid of those numbers.

(I mention the sheep-counting numbers on the ethnomathematic page. They're certainly fascinating, but they're a little obscure for the main list.)

Richard W wrote:

dyolf wrote:Since that paper was published (in 1924) scholarly opinion has moved far away from the Goidelic survival hypothesis.

What do you mean by 'Goidelic survival hypothesis'? It sounds like a theory that some areas had remained Q-Celtic, rather than being Q-Celtic because of an invasion from Ireland. I'm not disputing that these 'Cardiganshire' numerals are of Irish origin - it's the date that's of greater interest.

All I've gathered from a Celtic Studies professor on Facebook is that the modern belief is that any use of these numerals was done by Irish labourers in the area around the 17C, not by Welsh speakers themselves, but may have been written down by Welsh speakers (hence the spellings). No Welsh-speakers from Cardiganshire use them, nor have ever heard of them, unless they're familiar with Irish, nor have these numbers impacted the Welsh of the area, where the standard un, dau/dwy, tri/tair, pedwar/pedair, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg are used. So these numbers are not a "Cardiganshire dialect" but just Irish people using Irish numbers in Wales.

dyolf wrote:

Richard W wrote:

dyolf wrote:Since that paper was published (in 1924) scholarly opinion has moved far away from the Goidelic survival hypothesis.

What do you mean by 'Goidelic survival hypothesis'? It sounds like a theory that some areas had remained Q-Celtic, rather than being Q-Celtic because of an invasion from Ireland. I'm not disputing that these 'Cardiganshire' numerals are of Irish origin - it's the date that's of greater interest.

All I've gathered from a Celtic Studies professor on Facebook is that the modern belief is that any use of these numerals was done by Irish labourers in the area around the 17C, not by Welsh speakers themselves, but may have been written down by Welsh speakers (hence the spellings). No Welsh-speakers from Cardiganshire use them, nor have ever heard of them, unless they're familiar with Irish, nor have these numbers impacted the Welsh of the area, where the standard un, dau/dwy, tri/tair, pedwar/pedair, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg are used. So these numbers are not a "Cardiganshire dialect" but just Irish people using Irish numbers in Wales.

would modern-day welsh speakers be familiar with them though? how many modern-day english speakers in cumbria are familiar with the brythonic numerals?

dyolf wrote:

Richard W wrote:

dyolf wrote:Since that paper was published (in 1924) scholarly opinion has moved far away from the Goidelic survival hypothesis.

What do you mean by 'Goidelic survival hypothesis'? It sounds like a theory that some areas had remained Q-Celtic, rather than being Q-Celtic because of an invasion from Ireland. I'm not disputing that these 'Cardiganshire' numerals are of Irish origin - it's the date that's of greater interest.

All I've gathered from a Celtic Studies professor on Facebook is that the modern belief is that any use of these numerals was done by Irish labourers in the area around the 17C, not by Welsh speakers themselves, but may have been written down by Welsh speakers (hence the spellings).

Then the author of the original paper, David Thomas, was quite negligent not to mention that his original informants didn't speak Welsh. He did note with surprise in a later paper that the informant who finally gave him the form for '21' came from south of the Landsker Line. The supplier of the 5th list (96 years old when interviewed) said that he used to use these numbers to count sheep and cattle in his youth.

Now, it's not impossible that the users were recently descended from Irish immigrants. An account of the game of cnapan says that the village of Llanwenog (then spelt with 'nn') split into two parts for the game, and one group was known as the 'Paddy Bros' 'from a tradition that they were descended from Irish people'. Admittedly Llanwenog is a few miles to the west of the informants' area, apparently speaking a different dialect.

dyolf wrote:No Welsh-speakers from Cardiganshire use them,...

Quite believable.

dyolf wrote:...nor have ever heard of them, unless they're familiar with Irish, nor have these numbers impacted the Welsh of the area,...

Total ignorance must be an exaggeration! I'll accept that those who know of them have usually read about them rather than having heard about them.

dyolf wrote:where the standard un, dau/dwy, tri/tair, pedwar/pedair, pump, chwech, saith, wyth, naw, deg are used. So these numbers are not a "Cardiganshire dialect" but just Irish people using Irish numbers in Wales.

The label needs to be improved. Perhaps 'obs. S. Cardiganshire, for sheep & cattle' would be a better label. The set might be relegated to a cross-reference, but I think it's famous enough to at least get a reference on the main page.

zompist wrote:(I mention the sheep-counting numbers on the ethnomathematic page. They're certainly fascinating, but they're a little obscure for the main list.)

They're slightly hidden because the opening paragraph tag is missing before 'Celtic'. It might be worth mentioning that they usually go up to 20, and it might also be worth mentioning that the sets are regional English words - they're not attested from any Celtic language!