Slashdot Mirror
Amazonian Tribe Has No Word To Express Numbers
In 2004 we discussed the Piraha, a tribe in the Amazon, when a study appeared characterizing their language as a "one, two, many" language. Now reader mu22le informs us of a new study of the Piraha pointing to the possibility that they use no number words at all. Instead they seem to use the word formerly thought to mean "two" to represent a quantity of 5 or 6, and the "one" word for anything from 1 to 4. The language has about 300 native speakers. "The study... offers evidence that number words are a concept invented by human cultures as they are needed, and not an inherent part of language, Gibson said."
Has no word to express.. uhhmm... forgot what it's called now.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
??? Have no words for numbers
???
???
??? Profit!
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Seems that what they're calling "Numbers" are the same as our quantity descriptors. Small number, medium number, and large number. Seems reasonable, I'm no anthropologist, but I think that numbers really start when you have a lot of trade going on, when you have to KNOW that 5 ears of corn is worth 1 basket of peas.
then there's also no way to collect taxes. I should move...
MP3 Search Engine
How do they indicate successful termination of their C programs?
The use the WingDings font.
So, I grew up on a Bushveld Farm in Africa.
And, as one does on farms in the raw, one must maintain a system of control... over baboons.
Experience taught the farmers how to deal with baboons, as a necessity towards having a harvest- baboons are quite destructive you see.
The first method is by catching one using the 'pumpkin' trick. Quite easy:
Tie down a pumkin, make a hole in it just big enough for a baboon hand to slip in and wait.
The baboon will come along and stick his hand into the pumpkin, grab a handful and then try to remove his hand... but as an empty hand can go in, the clenched fist cannot get out... baboon does not want to let go... and is therefore stuck. Then you paint the fellow white, and let it go. The returning baboon will scare the living daylights out of his tribe and they will disappear for a while.
The other method... well... shoot a couple and the farm will be avoided for a LONG time.
It is not as easy as one would think to hunt baboons, firstly, as they have very effective watch..err.. watchmen (Bobejaan-brandwag) who will sound the alarm as soon as they spot people with guns. The trick is as follows (works for Maize fields):
If one man walks into the field, and hides, the baboons stay away.
If two goes in, and one comes out, they stay away.
If three goes in and two comes out... they stay away...
But if four goes in and three comes out... they seem to think that many went in and many left... all right to plunder. (ok, know it should be 'feed', but we live in a relative universe!)
We used to tease and say "1-2-many" is how baboons count. So, imagine my puzzlement when I saw that there are... well... humans living by a similar system!
Here we are wielding the Power of the Universe (maths) as if it is nothing... and others are still learning how to count!
Probably our ability and need to express numbers came from... capitalism :-)
Dammit... finding 'good' in capitalism is painful! :-(
Completely clashes with my view utopian socialism
It is a general property of people that the most objects they can generally count in a single glance is around 5. The most things a typical person can easily remember in the short term is seven.
Maybe the "one" word means "I can easily commit the scene to memory at a glance", meaning that the scene has a few easily remembered objects in it.
The "two" word might mean "yes I can remember that scene, but I have to concentrate to do it". Typically that would mean the scene has 5-6 items.
The "many" word might mean "no I cannot easily remember the number and arrangement of objects in that scene"
In other words the word used depends on the mental effort required.
The previous study had the same basic flaw: they asked the Piraha to count objects that they never normally had to deal with (it was batteries, I think).
What westerners often forget is that many cultures have different numbering systems for different types of things.
If they asked instead, "how many children do you have", or "how many people are there in that hut", they would most likely discover (shock! horror!) that the Piraha count people exactly as you or I. (If we know the individuals we can count up to 10 or so, if we don't, we count up to five or six, then switch to "many").
These experiments look designed to prove something bogus, namely that counting is not an innate skill.
My blog
Should be "one, two, many"
KDawson, you got a link to your own website wrong, on your own website. You n00b.
I heard they have discovered that some ancient tribes in the world are still using imperial measurement. Hard to believe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_language#Words_for_snow
But it seems like they have that to some extent. If they have a "range" that indicates small/medium/large, then they're still counting. They just don't have a word for the specific total.
If they know that "this many" units of food was enough to feed them last time, then "this many" units of food will likely serve that purpose next time.
If the size of the group grows, then they need "this many" plus "some more". And that "some more" will then be wrapped into "this many" the following year.
IAAHTNL (I am a highly trained ninja linguist) and I'd just like to say that Piraha is quite alien in general. From the point of view of the Piraha, all other human languages, whether spoken by city-dwellers or nomads, are pretty much the same.
That is, they MIGHT say that, if Piraha culture had any use for abstract concepts and stuff they couldn't see.
Here's their assigned IPv4 network range:
many.many.many.many/small
They are nowhere using it up, so thankfully they have no plans to migrate to IPv6. (Which is a good thing because if I tried this joke with an IPv6 address, it would probably trigger the lameness filter.)
Too many?
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Instead they seem to use the word formerly thought to mean "two" to represent a quantity of 5 or 6, and the "one" word for anything from 1 to 4.
Bartenders and police officers in the US dealing with drunks are very familiar with this method of counting.
Lots!
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
The best example is the omnipresent claim that Inuit have dozens of words for snow.
Actually, that's not a very good example at all. The main reason people say that is because Inuit is a polysynthetic language, which blurs the line between word and sentence.
You also have to consider that the guy who made the claim actually used as his examples any reference to frozen water in the language...even if it really didn't refer to the powdery white stuff. If he didn't know English, and were making a similar claim, he'd say that at least ice, sleet, hail, snow, blizzard, and glacier are all words for snow.
Sometimes, even if you interact with it a lot, one word is enough. Sometimes, also, context plays a big part in defining the language, so you don't need as many words to convey the message (and this is *absolutely true* of a polysynthetic language).
Quite frankly, I have seen no conclusive evidence that quantity or quality of words are directly tied to the cultures from which they come. Sometimes a word will come into existence when there is little need (example: defenestration), and sometimes people will *badly* adapt an existing word to mean something new rather than creating a new, better word to fill the gap (example: usages of the word "perfect" in different domains). This tribe may be different, but that might make them the exception, rather than the rule.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Do we get to choose which particular English speakers we send there? I've started a list already (*mumblegrumble!@$Fskn*motherinlaw*).
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
...and they were first clued in on this number system when they asked how many people were in their tribe and the answer was "two"...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
If you're trying to show that Amazonians aren't inferior to us, I agree. If you're trying to show that they're superior, I disagree.
Each of us knows what we need to know. Getting "food and water and safety" is the primary task of every individual in a society like that, and you betcha they know a lot about it. We live in a very very specialized society, where a person can spend his whole career getting letters and numbers to appear on a screen correctly and never know where his food comes from.
Trying to get a programmer to live as an Amazonian is more hazardous than trying to get an Amazonian to live as a programmer, precisely because most of the Amazonian's "job" is "try to stay alive." And it is very hard - I'm sure their life expectancies are shorter than ours. If syntax errors made computers explode into shrapnel, it would be more even.
I see nothing really wrong here. Where I live people routinely give non descriptive meaning to words as numbers. I'm learned not to try to figure it out but just accept it. I mean who really knows what the difference is between a ass-load and a shit-load. Or how much is really in a fuck ton.
Just smile and nod, that's what I do.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
I mean who really knows what the difference is between a ass-load and a shit-load. Or how much is really in a fuck ton.
Well, to be fair the fuck ton is defined in terms of shit-loads; the shit-load is defined in terms of an ass-load; and the ass-load is defined by a fecal mass stored in a hermetically sealed container in a vault in France. Finally, for reasons no one has found, the fecal mass is changing.
Anyway my point is that unit confusion is not unreasonable in this case.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
An assload is about 85lbs. It is what the old U.S. Army (back in the days of the western expansion) could safely place on a mule or donkey's back for a day of travel without harming it. It was a unit to assist in calculating logistics trains.
You can hunt around for references. Enjoy.
-- Posted from my parent's basement