z39\doc\web\2000\03\count.txt Date sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:19:13 -0500 From: "J. P. Rushton" Subject: [h-bd] IQ and Counting [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Phil Rushton on Henry Harpending and Galton and counting in Herero (South East Africans in Namibia). Francis Galton explored this area and reported how hard it was to ask Herero's for measures of distance or time as they had no words for numbers. They apparently counted to five with words one, two, three, many, and many-many. he said it would sorely taxed a Hereroes calculating power to reason that if two sticks of tobacco equaled one oxen that four sticks equaled two oxen, or something simple of that nature. He found it astonishing that groups could be so low in cultural scale. He had not seen anything like it in his travels of Egypt and upper Sudan or of reading of explorations then being conducted of Western North America (also very "primitive" by European standards). Henry, didn't you once tell me this was the same area you once worked in too? Henry Harpending wrote: > Several weeks ago there was discussion about numeracy on this list. > I wrote that northern Bushmen only have number for 1 to 4, then I > speculated that central Bushmen would have more in their language > because of their history of occasional pastoralism. > > With the help of my colleague Polly Wiessner (anthropologists on the > list may know her) I found the answer, and my hypothesis was wrong. > Naro (Naron, Nharo) have words for 1, 2, and 3. Nothing more. > > But Polly recalled an incident that, when I heard it, was very > familiar to me. She went into a store with a Bushman woman who > bought an item for 17 pula (the currency of Botswana), paid with a > 100 pula note, and very carefully counted the change of 83 pula. No > problem. > > She did not need words to think! Perhaps several of us were > thoughtlessly assuming the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that > language guides thought, in our discussion. As Pinker shows in his > book this hypothesis is wrong. > > I mention it because it is entrenched in our public life and it is > the basis of political correctness. If I am forced to call my > (female) department chairman a "chairperson", the PC police claim, I > will become less sexist. No evidence to support this. > > Henry > -- J. Philippe Rushton Department of Psychology University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Telephone: (519) 661-3685 http://www.sscl.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html Date sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:26:14 -0500 From: "James C. Bennett" To: Henry Harpending Copies to: h-bd@egroups.com Subject: [h-bd] Re: forager counting [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] People who interested in number words should look at Karl Menninger's "Number Words and Number Symbols. A cultural history of numbers", which has gone through many editions since 1969. He makes the point, which Henry brings up, that preliterate people typically progress through stages of dealing with larger numbers through the use of physical counters -- saying "these many sheep" and handing a bag full of pebbles. Division was done by counting out "One for you, one for me" until all was divided -- like pirates splitting the loot in stories. Tally sticks -- sticks with cuts marking each item counted -- were another device, these were desirable because they could also serve as a permanent record. Big or crosswise cuts were used to mark fives, tens, or twenties. Again, you didn't need a name for these numbers -- you could just hand over the counting object and say "this much". The abacus is an obvious extension of the pebble-counter method. So, Menninger backs up Henry's point -- you can handle large numbers without having an exact word for them. In fact, our large-number counting word systems seem to have evolved from verbal descriptions of physical counting systems. Date sent: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:25:58 -0700 From: Henry Harpending To: "h-bd@egroups.com" Subject: [h-bd] Re: IQ and Counting [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] I will have to reread Galton. Much of what he saw is just what we see today: for example he got all the Herero matrilineages right. But what you quote does not sound right. I can think of three possible explanations offhand. 1. People were playing with him. Not unlikely. 2. He was confused at that point between Herero and some of their slaves, the Bergdama. 3. Herero have changed a whole lot since then. CONTEXT: for those not familiar with African history, there are black and yellow people in southern Africa. The Blacks speak Bantu languages, the Yellows speak Khoisan languages, famous for having click sounds. So Bantu are to Khoisan as Europeans are to Amerindians. The Bantu languages (like the Romance languages) are all pretty similar, a trace of the Bantu expansion from West Africa several millenia ago and continuing to this day. Herero are Bantu-speaking black people. Among Herero there is fluent production and comprehension of numbers, e.g. "1931" or "383". Here, for curiosity, are their number words. I have always assumed they were generic Bantu, but does anyone recognize any of them? 1 mue 2 mbari 3 tatu 4 ane 5 vitano 6 hamboumue 7 hambombari 8 hambondatu 9 muvyu 10 morongo 11 morongonaumue etc. 100 eseri 1000 eyovi Henry