Talk:Australian Aboriginal enumeration

Requested move

There's a new poll here that would (hopefully) end all this "Indigenous" vs. "Aborigine" controversy. Feel free to vote. Zarbat 09:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

is this a Base 32 counting sytem?

Is anyone able to confirm how this works?

The counting system suggested as the Wurundjeri system would give digits up to 31. If there is also a concept of zero - then you could get a Base 32 counting system out of that.

if you count using base 10 - you only need numbers 123456789 - if you have 0 then the next digit is 10 so if you have 123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstu plus zero - then 32 (in base 10) would be 10 in base 32.

If you were to say that there were 80 people coming how would you indicate that using the Wurundjeri system? Would you use 31 +31 + 8 (little finger2 + little finger2 + forearm1) or would you say 2 lumps of 32 and 6 (so ring finger1 lumps and then wrist1)

Also does anyone know if you counted from the right little finger to the left little finger, or the other way around - and do you know if one would indicate using the other hand for the first 5 digits (where we would raise those fingers)?

I'm just curious really but hopefully whoever does know about this stuff can use these questions as a starting point for ways to improve/clarify the article. EdwardLane (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

There is no evidence for any form of numeracy using any base system, the evidence suggest that there are symbols that match groups of things with most areas only using 1,2,3 but others up to 15, the fact that many used 1,2,3,4,5 then jump to 10 is a typical incomplete set system. Even just 2 symbols can be used to form a complete mathematical system, but again there is no evidence that symbols were used in such an abstract way, only that they were literal labels in a similar way to how we can say truck is a bigger amount than car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.197 (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Is it best to start this with a "common misconception" (and debunking thereof)? Surely something to introduce the actual numbers would be better, not least because if people just read the beginning it only takes a slight slip of the memory to remember the "no numbers" theory and not the "actually they DON'T have no numbers" bit.

(Speaking as someone who had no preconceptions of Australian Aboriginal counting systems at all, but assumed they must have them because it has a Wikipedia page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.211.125 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Balanced coverage

I don't find this article to be very balanced. It argues that Aboriginal people having only simple counting systems is "a misconception", but bases this on just two counter-examples. I assume that the counting systems described for SE Australia are accurately described, but I know from my own research that the situation is very different in northern Australia. All the languages/societies I have studied in the Top End have number systems that only go up to 3. If I find time to research this in more detail I will update the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.0.19.53 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of number words

About « A common misconception among non-Aboriginals is that Aboriginals did not have a way to count beyond two or three » It should be noted that contrary to what this article seems to imply the fact that aborigines languages lack number words is well attested; see among others: 1) Ken Hale ‘s article Hale, Kenneth L.1975. Gaps in grammar and culture, pp.295-315 in Linguistics and Anthropology. In Honor of C.F. Voegelin, ed. by M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth L. Hale & Oswald Werner. 2) Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press in linguistics; and Butterworth, B., Reeve, R., & Reynolds, F. (2011). Using mental representations of space when words are unavailable: studies of enumeration and arithmetic in indigenous Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural …, 62–66

Note that this has nothing to do with racism although one can conceive that some people might misinterpret what seems to be the reflex of universal ability to use approximate numbers. See Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and Approximate Arithmetic in an Amazonian Indigene Group. Science, 306(5695) among others.

We suggest that the article takes into account these facts and related data, as most articles on numerations in Wikipedia do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrepica (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Aboriginal enumeration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012060901/http://www.aija.org.au/online/ICABenchbook/BenchbookChapter5.pdf to http://www.aija.org.au/online/ICABenchbook/BenchbookChapter5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)