UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM Graduate School for Humanities MA Program in General Linguistics

MA Thesis Counting bases in the Samoyedic Languages: the present and the past

Amsterdam 2016 Contents

Preface 3 Acknowledgements 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Theoretical framework 7 2.1. Numeral systems and counting bases 7 2.2. Historical typology of numeral systems 8 2.3. Structural typology of numeral systems 9 3. Overview of characteristics of the Samoyedic languages 15 3.1 Samoyedic languages' ancestry and modern taxonomy 15 3.2 Sociolinguistic situation and documentation 18 3.3 Overview of linguistic characteristics of the Samoyedic languages 21 4. Samoyedic numerals 22 4.1 Proto-Uralic, proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Samoyedic numerals 22 4.2. Samoyedic numerals: present state 28 4.3 Counting bases in the Samoyedic languages 31 4.3.1 Quaternary system 31 4.3.2 Septimal system 34 4.3.3 Nonary system 36 4.3.4 Decimal system 37 4.3.5 Vigesimal system 39 5. Discussion 40 6. Conclusion 42 References 43

!2 Preface Numeral systems seem to be one of the most captivating linguistic topics I have ever come across. I have started studying numerals just recently; however, I found this subject extremely interesting from the very beginning. People always had to count: the days, the food, each other, so numerals represent the material for both comparative and historical linguistics. I have chosen to work with the Uralic, more specifically Samoyedic numerals, as 3 years ago I took part in an expedition to the Yamal Nenets Autonomous District, where I studied Selkup and since then I have been working mostly on the Uralic languages and have never regretted this: the Uralic language family is for now my main linguistic interest. Numerals in the Samoyedic languages, namely counting bases, represent a very interesting linguistic phenomenon as there is so much to be discovered, so many questions to be asked and so many answers to be found. I consider this thesis «Counting bases in the Samoyedic Languages: the present and the past» as a journey to the mysterious world of the Samoyeds. So let the adventure begin!

!3 Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor prof. dr. Kees Hengeveld for his useful guidance, comments and considerable encouragement to complete this thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank my second reader dr. Cecilia odé for her support and for introducing me to my supervisor. I would also like to thank those who sparked my interest in Uralic languages and numeral systems studies, in particular my Yamal fieldwork supervisor olga Kazakevich and my internship supervisor Liza Bylinina. I wish to express my special thanks to all my lecturers at the University of Amsterdam for their precious assistance, scholarly knowledge and enthusiasm. I would also like thank Eugenia Uskova from Mari State University, Valentin Gusev from Hamburg University and Halgar Fenririsson from Moscow for helping me to find some books and articles I needed for this research. Last but not least, I would like to express my indebtedness to all those who have given me constant support and love during the completion of this thesis: my love, my precious friends and my beloved family, especially my talented sister Anna for being there for me any time of day or night.

!4 1. Introduction In this research numeral systems of the Samoyedic languages are under investigation. The Samoyedic languages form a branch of the Uralic languages, which is believed to have a common ancestral language called proto-Samoyedic, that has developed into 4 groups: North- Samoyedic (including Nenets, Nganasan, Enets languages), Selkup, Mator and Kamas (Bykonya 1998). Ethnologue1 doesn't include any information about Mator; however, Russian sources do (e.g., Bykonya 1998). All of the present-day Samoyedic languages have a decimal (10-based) numeral system. The main question raised in this research is whether this has always been the case. Scholars have attempted to answer the same question about all the Uralic languages taken together (Honti 1993, Napolskih 2012); however, the results sometimes contradict each other. Scholars make remarks about the fact that Samoyedic numerals have specific features that distinguish them among other Uralic languages. A research concerning counting bases in the Samoyedic languages in particular, to my knowledge, has never been conducted before. The current thesis contains studies of numeral systems of all Samoyedic languages. I will search for answers through cultural-historical analysis: such an approach will provide information about what techniques the Samoyedic peoples used to count and how these techniques are reflected in the formation of numerals. The material of the research includes previous studies on the topic and their analysis. The scientific literature on the numerals of Selkup, Enets, Nganasan and Nenets is broad enough for such an analysis. However, finding an explicit description of the numerals in Mator and Kamas appeared to be more problematic. During the course of writing this thesis, I have been writing to different institutions in order to ask for different pieces of work and after all I have succeeded, with the help of others, mentioned in the Acknowledgements. It should be understood that such a research project also includes studying cultural and even domestic features of the Samoyedic peoples in the past and partly in the present, their connections with other peoples, their migrations and even their trade history, as numeral systems are directly connected with the traditions and the way of life. The research will therefore present a unique collection of data concerning numeral systems of the Samoyedic languages, which has never been compiled before. An analysis of different materials and theories will then allow me to postulate my own hypothesis about the

1 https://www.ethnologue.com

!5 counting bases of the Samoyedic languages throughout the course of the past ca. 6.000 years, around a period of time in which the history of these languages can be examined with the methods of comparative linguistics (Honti 1999: 243). Mator is extinct since the 1840s; the last native speaker of Kamas — Klavdiya Plotnikova2 — died in 1989, while the rest of the Samoyedic languages are endangered. As two of the languages which are being described here are already extinct and the rest are on the brink of extinction, this task can be justifiably called urgent. Now I have at least a theoretical possibility to refer to native speakers, perhaps in just a few years this will not be the case. The research will consist of a Theoretical Framework, where I will first go over some of the basic concepts and give an overview of the historical and structural typologies of numeral systems. I will then provide the reader with information on the Samoyedic languages, such as their ancestry, taxonomy, sociolinguistic situation and documentation, followed by linguistic characteristics. The main chapter will begin with an overview of scholars' attempts to reconstruct proto-Uralic, proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Samoyedic numeral systems. I am not going to reconstruct the system myself — my task is to study existing reconstructions. I will then give an overview of the present numerals in each of the six Samoyedic languages examined in this study. The data is collected from different sources, acknowledged below. Then counting bases of the Samoyedic languages will be studied, different theories on the topic will be examined. I am going to study five existing hypotheses concerning this issue. I will provide theoretical framework for each of the hypotheses, including scholars' opinions on them and their pro and contra arguments, followed by my own opinion and reasoning. On the basis of the conducted research I will propose my own answer to the question whether the Samoyedic languages and their common ancestral language proto-Samoyedic have always had a decimal numeral system.

2 Klavdiya Plotnikova (ca. 1893-1989) was the last living speaker of Kamas. She did not have the opportunity to speak Kamas after 1950, because there was no one who could speak it to her. Despite that, her Kamas skills were quite good (Matveev 1965: 34). Linguists such as Kai Donner, Aleksandr Matveyev, Ago Künnap have worked with her.

!6 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Numeral systems and counting bases Since my study focuses on counting bases, I will start this section with a definition of numerals, numeral systems and the place of counting bases within them. Numerals are «frequent expressions used in daily communication to count objects, compare amounts, calculate, determine order, make measurements, encode information and transmit data» (Koşaner 2016: 131). A numeral system is a set of ways in which we, as humans, realize numerals. This broad definition includes ways to write numerals down or to represent them in speech. Furthermore, we need some sort of a counting base, which is the fundamental numeral that all other numerals of the specific system stand in relation to (Weibull 2004: 1). In a language that has X as a counting base, numerals are expressed via different calculations with this X. For example, the language used in this paper — English — has numeral 10 as a counting base (such a system is called a decimal system): numerals from 0 to 10 have unique names and symbols and all numerals higher than these are expressed using multiplication and addition applied to the base (with some exceptional irregularities such as 11 'eleven'). Numeral systems can be divided into positional systems, where the order of symbols is important for the meaning of the numeral as a whole, and non-positional systems, where the order doesn't play any role (Weibull 2004: 8). English obviously has a positional notation, as we distinguish the meanings of 64 and 46. Moreover, numerals are divided into cardinal, ordinal, fractional, collective, distributive, approximative, multiplicative, etcetera. Cardinal numerals — the ones which all of us refer to when we think of a numeral — show the size of a group. English cardinal numerals include one, two, three, four, five etcetera. They serve to express the basic counting system, so in my research I will examine cardinal numerals. Even though the decimal system is the most widely used system in modern civilizations, it is just one of the varieties of different systems presented in the world throughout the ages and at the present time. Later in this chapter I will briefly describe the changes in numeral systems throughout our mathematical history and present some other typologies. Cultural and historical contexts are important to understand the changes and the development of numeral systems. All numeral systems have a high degree of borrowability and they are easily affected by other languages. Numeral systems of minority language groups disappear rather quickly when such groups become integrated into bigger groups — often the numeral system is the

!7 first system to be affected by a contact with national languages or languages of wider communication, even when the rest of the language is unendangered (De Vries 1993).

2.2. Historical typology of numeral systems The history of numeral systems has been described by different scholars. Prehistoric numeral systems are primitive systems. They developed when there appeared a need to express magnitudes. Examples of these are body-count systems, in which the names of body parts are used to count, for example, fingers on one hand can be used to count from 1 to 5. These simple and limited numeral systems then developed into more complex systems with arithmetic bases. However, some languages of the world still have numeral systems based on body-part names, for example, the extended body-part system in the Kobon language, which is spoken in New Guinea (Comrie 2013). However, such systems are considered to be exceptional as throughout the history most of the numeral systems have developed into ones with arithmetic bases. The Egyptian hieroglyphic numeral system dates back to around 3000 B.C.E. It was a decimal non-positional system, written in hieroglyphs, where logographic and alphabetic elements were combined (Weibull 2004). The Chinese numeral system dates back to around 2500 B.C.E. It has changed little over the years and the only real important change till now is the addition of the zero. Chinese has a decimal system, there are items for 1 through 9 and for various powers of 10, like in English. The way of forming larger numerals was similar to English, where each numeral is attached to a given multiple of ten. The system is non- positional. The Babylonian Numeral system, which appeared around 2000 BC, had 60 as its counting base, known as a sexagesimal system. Unique symbols were used for numerals 1, 10 and 60. It stays unclear, why the Babylonians had 60 as their numeral, probably due to its divisibility by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. It is the largest base ever used in a numeral system of historical relevance known so far, and it was the first positional system developed (Weibull 2004). The Greek numeral system of around 500 B.C.E. is known as the Ionian numeral system, a non-positional decimal numeral system. The Roman numeral, also decimal and positional, system appeared around 0 C.E. The letters of the alphabet were used to form numerals. The numeral system was primitive for its

!8 time, however, the use of Roman numerals continued for a long time. From the 14th century, Roman numerals began to be replaced by the Hindu-Arabic numerals. The use of Roman numerals persists in some minor applications to this day (Menninger 1992). The Maya Indians developed their numeral system around 400 C.E. due to the growing interest in the calendar. The numeral system was positional and based on the numeral 20, known as a vigesimal system, with 5 as an intermediate base. The system included three symbols for numerals 1, 5, and 0 (Ifrah 2000). The Hindu-Arabic numeral system, positional and decimal, appeared in around 300 BC, is the most used one nowadays (Weibull 2004).

2.3. Structural typology of numeral systems It is important to understand that the chronological typology presented above is not setting a limit to the systems, it only determines the general direction. Very different numeral systems have been employed by many cultures and civilizations throughout the ages, and there exists a wide variety of them even today, in our comparatively global society. In the typology presented in De Vries (1993) numeral systems are classified according to their complexity and include: 1) Restricted systems: no or less than five numerals, with little internal structure (e.g., Piraha: no numerals; Mangarayi, Pama-Nyungan: numerals from 1 to 5); 2) Simple systems with addition only (e.g., Kombai: 1, 2, 3=2+1, 4=2+2); 3) Complex systems with addition and multiplication applied to a base (e.g., English with a 10-based system, Yoruba with a 20-based system, Yuki with an 8-based system etcetera). The classification presented above is obviously just one out of a variety of classifications suggested by different scholars (Ifrah 2000, Comrie 2013, Karpinski 1925). There are still many problematic cases that create difficulties because they can't be easily classified. The typology presented in Comrie (2013), the most complete and detailed classification I have come across, seems to cover most of the problematic cases. Comrie's classification is based on the complexity of the system and arithmetic processes used to create the numerals. It includes 9 types, briefly described below (with examples):

1) Restricted systems, with little or no internal structure. Speakers of languages with restricted systems (for example, certain Australian aborigonal

!9 languages such as Mangarayi and Pama-Nyungan) typically do not count items — they immediately recognize the numeral, as is possible up to around 5:

(1) 1 (ŋa)wumbawa (Mangarayi) 2 ŋabaranwa 3 ŋabaḷawa

This type also includes languages with no numerals, such as Pirahã.

2) Simple systems with addition only, applied to a base.

(2) 1 paŋ (Haruai) 2 mos 3 mos paŋ '2 + 1' 4 mos mos '2 + 2'

3) More complex systems using multiplication and addition applied to a base. The general pattern of such systems is the following: (for base b): (n x b) + m (where m

(3) swabra ptae ynaoaemy ntamnao (Kanum (6-based system)) five thirty six two three.six '200 [(5 x 6²) + (3 x 6) + 2]'

(4) wǔ-shí sì (Mandarin (10-based system)) five-ten four '54 [(5 x 10) + 4]'

(5) kəlgən-qlekken məngətkən ŋireq parol (Chukchi (20-based system)) fifteen-twenty ten two left '312 [(15 x 20) + (10 + 2)]'

(6) %̀fɔ wǎdh%̀ (Ngiti (32-based system)) four thirtytwo '128 [4 x 32]'

!10 4) Idiosyncrasies relating to bases. Idiosyncrasies include all irregularities relating to bases, such as portmanteau forms or isolated bases.

(7) eleven (English) '11' [expected 10 + 1]

(8) sorok (Russian) forty '40' [expected 4 x 10]

(9) deu-naw (Welsh (20-based system)) two-nine '18 (2 x 9)' [expected a simple numeral or 20 – 2]

5) Exponentiation and other higher bases.

(10) 10¹ 10² 10³ 106 (English) ten hundred thousand million

(11) qliq-qlikkin (Chukchi) twenty-twenty '400 (20 x 20)' – highest numeral in traditional system

6) ) Other arithmetic operations. Subtraction

(12) un-de-viginti (Latin) one-from-twenty '19 [20 – 1]'

Division (multiplication by fraction)

(13) hanner cant (Welsh) half hundred '50 [½ x 100]'

!11 Subtraction and addition

(14) dɔŋas' bən's'aŋ kiʔ (Ket) thirty without hundred '70 [100 – 30]'

Overcounting

(15) halv-tred-sinds-tyve (Danish) half-third-times-twenty ½ 3rd times 20 (3rd ½ = 2½) '50'

Pairing3

(16) wóh-naiki (Yaqui) two-four '8 [2 x 4]'

(17) woh-mámni (Yaqui) two-five '10 [2 x 5]'

7) Ordering of constituents. Different systems use different orders of constituents, from larger to smaller, from smaller to larger or the combination of these two. Comrie suggests the hypothesis, that the order from larger to smaller is preferred because it gives earlier recognition of the approximate quantity involved, i.e. in 354 the 300 is more significant than the 4. So he expects a prevalence of the order from larger to smaller, with possible local inversion of the lower positions. From larger to smaller

(18) sān-bǎi wǔ-shí sì (Mandarin) three-hundred five-ten four '354 [300 + 50 + 4]'

3 By pairing Comrie means multiplication by 2.

!12 From smaller to larger

(19) efatra amby dima-mpolo sy telo-njato (Malagasy (Standard)) four plus five-ten and three-hundred '354 [4 + 50 + 300]'

From smaller to larger for smaller combinations, from larger to smaller for larger combinations

(20) drei-hundert-vier-und-fünf-zig (German) three-hundred-four-and-five-ten '354 [300 + 4 + 50]'

(21) zwei-hundert-sechs-und-fünf-zig-tausend-drei-hundert-vier-und-sieb-zig (German) two-hundred-six-and-five-ten-thousand-three-hundred-four-and-seven-ten '256 374 [(200 + 6 + 50) x 1000 + (300 + 4 + 70)]'

From larger to smaller for smaller combinations, from smaller to larger for larger combinations

(22) limam-polo roe amby, amby telon-jato (Malagasy (Nosy Be) five-ten two plus plus three-hundred '352 [i.e. 50 + 2 + 300]'

8) Ambiguity. Parsing ambiguities

(23) a million and a half (apples) (English) '1½ million, i.e. 1,500,000' or '1,000,000 ½'

Specialized use

(24) bak (Mayan) usually '400' but '360 days'

!13 Body part systems

(25) siduŋ (Kobon) 'shoulder' '10', '14', '33', '37', '56' or '60'

In Kobon the words for numerals are the words for 23 body parts: 11 left body parts, 11 right body parts and a hole above the breastbone, starting from the little finger of one hand, going up to the hole above the breastbone and then back down to the little finger of the other hand. The names for right and left body parts are the same, that is why the item for 10 is the same as the item for 14, etcetera.

9) Internal structure and psychological reality. Comrie describes several issues at the intersection with psychomathematics and suggests certain topics to discuss, such as the question whether people operate with linguistic representations of numerals or whether they operate with abstract quantities or arithmetic notations while doing arithmetic. For example, one of his discussions includes the writing issue. In both Dutch and German the numeral for 56 is formed additively:

(26) zesenvijftig (Dutch) '6 and 50' '56'

(27) sechsundfünfzig (German) '6 and 50' '56'

Comrie states that German speakers typically write the 5 then the 6 (and are explicitly instructed to do this at school), while Dutch speakers typically write the 6 and then go back to “fill in” the 54. Comrie's classification is the most complete and detailed classification I have come across so far and it includes a great number of arithmetic operations and other ways used in different languages to produce numerals. There are still many problematic cases and questions that

4 However, I have asked a few Dutch speakers and they do not agree with this statement.

!14 arise, for example whether quantifying expressions, including some with quite specific denotations, such as pair in English (essentially denoting a set of 2), should be considered numerals or not. Questions raised in the last part of Comrie's classification prove that the topic still includes many issues to be studied.

3. Overview of characteristics of the Samoyedic languages 3.1 Samoyedic languages' ancestry and modern taxonomy Proto-Uralic is a reconstructed language ancestral to the Uralic language family. The traditional picture of Proto-Uralic we have today was created by several generations of comparative linguists, starting with M. A. Castrén, five volumes of his collected works first appeared between 1852 and 1858. Based on the data collected by linguists and archeologists, it was proposed that the ancient home of Uralic people was situated somewhere in the East, on the Volga river or around the Southern Urals. People there spoke proto-Uralic in the Uralic proto-period, which ended somewhere between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago, after that it was divided into proto-Samoyedic and proto-Finno-Ugric languages. Nowadays Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric languages represent the Uralic language family. Another possible taxonomy of the Uralic languages also includes the Yukaghir languages. The relationship of the Yukaghir languages with other languages is still uncertain, however, it has been suggested that they are related to the Uralic languages, forming the putative Uralic-Yukagir language family (Collinder 1940). According to Nikolaeva, now it is almost impossible to confirm the connection between the Yukagir languages and the Uralic languages (Nikolaeva 2006). The Uralic languages now geographically cover Scandinavia, Finland and Eastern Central Europe to Central Russia. After the break-up of proto-Uralic, proto-Samoyedic has spread northwards, along the ob' and Yenisei basins, and southwards, in the direction of the Altai and Sayan mountains. The map on Picture 15 shows the current state of the geographical distribution of the Uralic languages (including Yukagir languages). The Samoyedic languages are represented by the 4 extant languages with the native speakers living mostly east of the Ural mountains. All of the Samoyedic-speaking regions are hatched with diagonal lines as they are very sparsely populated.

5 The map is taken from http://kids.britannica.com

!15 Picture 1. Geographical distribution of the Uralic languages (including Yukagir languages).

According to Janhunen, the early stages of proto-Samoyedic probably continued to maintain an areal contact with Finno-Ugric, especially Ugric for a long time. As traces of this interaction, Samoyedic possesses a few lexical items which may be explained as early loanwords from Ugric (Janhunen 1988: 488). However, according to Salminen, Samoyedic has undergone a process of 'relexification', in which it would have lost much of its original Uralic vocabulary (Salminen 2002: 52). This argument is based on the fact that Samoyedic alone, when compared to the other branches of Uralic, lacks many basic words, including, for instance, the Finno-Ugric words for 'hand' (*käti) and 'head' (*päxi). Proto-Samoyedic seems to have had such neighbours as proto-Tocharian, which left a few loanwords, notably the numeral *seytwø '7' (this loanword will de discussed below in 4.1). Moreover, contacts with Indo-European probably continued later during the period of the early Iranian presence in southern Siberia in the second to first millennium BCE. Samoyedic received an important

!16 layer of proto-Bolgar Turkic loanwords including items pertaining to animal husbandry, such as *yuntø 'horse', as well as the numeral *yiir '100'. Proto-Samoyedic also had direct contacts with early forms of Mongolian, Tungusic, and Yeniseian. In any case, after the break-up of proto-Samoyedic, the individual Samoyedic languages have entered into contact with many neighbouring languages, including some of the Turkic (for example, Khakas, Tuva, Dolgan), Mongolian, Tungusic, and Yeniseic (for example, Ket, Kott, Ann) families, as well as Khanty, Mansi, Komi. As the most recent contact phenomenon, all Samoyedic languages have borrowed lexical elements from Russian. In addition to the lexical impact, Russian influence is also influencing the syntactic and morphological systems of the Samoyedic languages (Janhunen 1988: 477). However, the Samoyedic languages have relatively few lexical items that can explicitly be regarded as direct inheritances from proto-Uralic. I quote: «Even by a very optimistic estimation, the numeral of proto-Uralic underived stems surviving in Samoyedic cannot possibly be much more than 150» (Janhunen 1988: 475). The Samoyedic branch may be divided into two groups: Northern Samoyedic and Southern Samoyedic. The northern group consists of Nganasan spoken in the Taymyr Peninsula; Enets, spoken along the lower Yenisei River in Krasnoyarsk Krai, and Nenets, spoken in the Yamal Nenets Autonomous District and Nenets Autonomous District. The Southern group includes Selkup, spoken in the region between the ob and Yenisei Rivers; Kamas and Mator. Considerable dialectal differences are present within Nenets (with Forest Nenets and Tundra Nenets), Enets (with Forest or Bai Enets and Tundra or Madu Enets) and Selkup (complex dialectal continuum). In my research I am going to operate mostly with the most wide spread dialects of these three languages: Tundra Nenets for Nenets, Forest Enets for Enets and the North dialect for Selkup. Both Kamas and Mator are known by a variety of names including Taigi and Karagas for Mator and Kaibal for Kamas. According to Castrén's studies, the Samoyedic peoples include not only the Nganasan, Enet, Nenets, Selkup, Kamas and Mator poeples, but also the Kaybal, Kotovz, Taigy and Kargasy peoples, who became Turkic speaking after the 19th Century (Castrén 1854). Some glossaries, collected by the explorers of Siberia, prove that they used to speak Samoyedic languages before being influenced by the Turkic neighbors. The same process happened to Kamas and Mator; however, the level of influence was much lower. Even though there is a big number of Turkic borrowings on different language levels, both Kamas and Mator stayed Samoyedic. Figure 1 shows the conventional

!17 taxonomy of the Samoyedic languages (Janhunen 1988: 459). However, not all scholars accept this taxonomy. For example, Helimski (2000) states that the existence of the Southern Samoyedic group does not have sufficient grounds and proposes Selkup, Kamas and Mator to be independent and roughly equidistant from Northern Samoyedic and from each other. In this research I will proceed using the conventional taxonomy of the Samoyedic languages as the most accepted one.

Figure 1. The conventional taxonomy of the Samoyedic languages

Proto-Samoyedic

Northern Samoyedic Southern Samoyedic

Nganasan Enets Nenets Selkup Kamas Mator

3.2 Sociolinguistic situation and documentation At the present time there are about 40,000 Samoyed people, which are dispersed over a vast territory which extends from Hungary and the Baltic Sea in the West, the Maimyr Peninsula in the East, the Arctic Ocean in the North and up to the middle course of the Danube, the Volga and the Irtysh in the South. Thus, they can be found living both in Europe and in Asia, both in tundras and in forests, both inside and outside of the Polar circle. The term Samoyedic is derived from the Russian term samoyed. Some scholars consider this term to be derogatory because it has been interpreted by several ethnologists to originate from Russian samo-yed meaning 'self-eater', i.e. 'cannibal' (Balzer 1999). Samoyedic etymologists, however, reject this derivation and instead trace the term's origin to the expression saam-edne, meaning 'the land of Sami peoples' (Chernetsov 1974). The second interpretation seems more reliable; however, I have recently come across a note made by Witsen in 1705, in which he mentions the fact that there were peoples in Siberia that actually used to eat each other, so there might also be a basis for the first interpretation (Witsen 1705).

!18 Samoyedic peoples are only one of many indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian North, Siberia and Far East. These peoples speak languages that belong to different language families: Altaic, Uralic, Yukagir and the isolated languages Ket and Nivkh. These languages are referred to as “northern minority languages”. All of these languages face the threat of extinction; however, they differ in the number of speakers. According to the 2010 census, at that time there were 40 Enets speakers, 125 Nganasan speakers, 1023 Selkup speakers and 21926 Nenets speakers. Most of the speakers were over 70 years old. All Samoyeds can be divided into Russian-speaking and bilingual, speaking one of the Samoyedic languages as their second language or sometimes their first language. There are no Samoyedic monolinguals anymore. Traditional spheres of the functioning of the Samoyedic languages are family and traditional activities (such as hunting, fishing and reindeer herding for transport needs). To determine the viability of a language, it is important to know whether the language is naturally transmitted within the family. The transmission of Nganasan, Nenets and southern Selkup dialects from parents to children has already broken down a few decades ago, which means that the youngest generation does not speak these languages at all. The preservation of the Northern dialect of Selkup is slightly better: in small villages where Selkups constitute the majority of the population (Ratta, Pur and Tolka), transmission of the language from parents to children still exists incidentally. The preservation of Nenets is much better: language transmission exists, especially in smaller villages, most of the Nenets people speak both Russian and Nenets. This language situation is mostly affected by the pressure of a socially dominant language — Russian. In the 19th century, when the Russians appeared as permanent settlers on the ethnic territories of the Samoyeds, they introduced many improvements into their everyday life and culture. During the Soviet period the economic dependence of the Samoyeds was aggravated because of the planned economy and the collectivization. In addition, ideological pressure and political surveillance took place. Both the Russian language and the Russian mass culture became widespread. According to the observations of A. A. Burykin, the Samoyed «national intelligentsia» undoubtedly believed that working in non-traditional professions, arranging their home lives in Russian style and speaking Russian to each other was prestigious and that they should encourage the peoples of the North to change themselves (Burykin 2005). This 'fashion' began among those who were

!19 bilingual, but was then assimilated by the rest, the minorities had to adapt to the surrounding linguistic situation. The Samoyedic languages differ in their level of documentation: only Nenets and Selkup may be regarded as well documented. By contrast, Nganasan, Enets and Kamas have remained poorly documented until recently, when the results of the latest field research are being published. Nevertheless, the grammatical and lexical information that is now available on Nganasan, Enets and Kamas is quite sufficient to allow these languages to be seriously analysed in a comparative context. As far as Mator is concerned, it is poorly documented: only the lexical information was noted down in time, while the morphology and syntax of this language is almost unknown. As the language is already extinct, not much can be done about this now. However, as I have stated above, I have succeeded in finding sufficient information on all six Samoyedic languages. The earliest notes on the Samoyedic languages derive from the seventeenth century works of Nicolaas Witsen and Peter Mundy. Among the studies of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, those describing languages and dialects that have later disappeared (Kaybal, Kotovz, Taigy and Kargasy, mentioned in 3.1) are the most valuable, for example studies by Gerhard Friedrich Müller. In the mid-nineteenth century Matthias Alexander Castrén has published descriptions and dictionaries of the Samoyedic languages, and after that the field research was continued by K. Donner, Toivo Lehtisalo, Heikki Paasonen. Nowadays, the Samoyedic languages are mostly studied in Russia, Finland, Hungary, Germany, and also in other countries. As mentioned above, I myself have taken part in one expedition to the Yamal Nenets Autonomous District to work on Selkup. Since 2001 more than twenty expeditions to that area have been held: working with the Selkups, the Kets, the Evenkis and the Forest Nenets. The expeditions were supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Foundation for Humanities. The group leader of the expeditions was prof. Olga A. Kazakevich. The expedition in which I took part was held on the territory of the Krasnoselkup region of the Yamal Nenets Autonomous District: we visited the settlements of Krasnoselkup and Tolka, the factories of Sidorovsk, Chaselka, the Langal Kyt fishing camp, the Munguia and Belyi Yar camps. Our group consisted of six researchers, we were working with 47 speakers (aged from 18 to 80 years old) of the northern dialects of Selkup for a duration of

!20 400 hours. The data collected during the expedition included linguistic information in the form of 67 Selkup texts, sociological, demographic and sociolinguistic information in the form of questionnaires, and folklore information in the form of oral narratives. The sociolinguistic questionnaires included questions about the speaker's family, about their place of birth, language preferences and environmental languages.

3.3 Overview of linguistic characteristics of the Samoyedic languages The Samoyedic languages are agglutinative languages with suffixation as the dominant morphological process. In nominal morphology, the following categories are present: numeral (singular, dual (extinct in some dialects) and plural), case (Nominative, Genetive, Accusative, Locative, Ablative, Dative, Prosecutive, etc.), animacy and possession (indicated with possessive suffixes). In verbal morphology, the following categories are present: conjugation (subjective and objective), person (first, second and third), tense (present, past, narrative past, and future), mood (indicative, latentive6, conditional, subjunctive, optative, debitive, auditive and imperative), grammatical aspect (perfective and imperfective), lexical aspect (Aktionsart) (iterative, durative, intensive, multiobject, multisubject, inchoative, attenuative, frequentative, etc.), numeral (singular, dual and plural) and voice (transitive, intransitive, causative, non- causative, reflexive, non-reflexive, active and passive). There are numerous derivational suffixes, which form both verbs and nominals. The Samoyedic languages are characterized by a fairly complex system of vowel phonemes and vowel harmony, like many other Uralic languages. Consonant clusters are only allowed in the middle of the word. The Samoyedic languages are nominative. The default word order is SOV and the modifier precedes the head word. Compound sentences are only found in Selkup due to the influence of Russian. As stated above in 3.2, contacts with the Evenki, Ob-Ugric, Yenisei, Turkic and Russians have led to a large number of borrowings in the Samoyedic languages, however, there are relatively few lexical items that can uncontroversially be defined as inheritances from proto-Uralic. In addition to the lexical impact, Russian influence is also currently influencing the syntactic and morphological systems of the extant Samoyedic languages (Janhunen 1988: 477).

6 Latentive mode is used to report someone's speech, but when the speaker does not want to be responsible for that.

!21 4. Samoyedic numerals 4.1 Proto-Uralic, proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Samoyedic numerals Several scholars have attempted to reconstruct proto-Uralic numerals, however, not all of them have succeeded. I would like to draw the reader's attention to the results of three studies: by Václav Blažek (1990), Laszlo Honti (1993) and Juha Janhunen (1977). Honti's conclusion about the reconstruction of the proto-Uralic numerals was unambiguous, according to him it is not possible to reconstruct the proto-Uralic numerals as there are no common numerals shared by the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages, even though they are related. Blažek's reconstruction is, conversely, very rich, he believes that external parallels allow to reconstruct the proto-Uralic numeral system consisting of the numerals from 1 to 5 and 10. His reconstructions of proto-Uralic numerals are given below in Table 1:

1 *ük-; *op-; *oj-

2 *ket-/*kat-; *koj-

3 *gur-

4 *ńel-/*ńal-

5 *witt-

10 *kümen-

Table 1. Reconstructed proto-Uralic numerals (Honti 1993).

However, his reconstruction was widely criticized, for example by Napolskih. I quote: «As it can be seen, most of these Blažek's proto-Uralic recontructions are too optimistic if not to say simply bad» (Napolskih 2003: 8). Helimski reports Blažek's recontruction to be based on «the highly questionable etymological comparisons» (Helimski 2000: 493). I am not able to call this piece of work «simply bad», however, I agree that Blažek's reconstruction is «too optimistic» and «highly questionable». Below, reconstructed proto-Finno-Ugric (Table 2, Janhunen 1977) and proto-Samoyedic (Table 3, Janhunen 1977) numerals are presented and we can see that, for example, there are no evident Samoyedic cognates to Finno-Ugric *neljä '4'; however, Blažek claims *neljä to be a reconstructed proto-Uralic item for 4. Similar questions can be raised about some other Proto-Uralic numerals reconstructed by Blažek. It is debatable whether items for any proto-Uralic numerals other than 2 and 5 can be

!22 reconstructed at all. Thus, in this research I will rely on a different reconstruction. In my opinion, Janhunen's attempt is more successful, his line of thinking is clear and his results are convincing: he states that for proto-Uralic only the items *kekta '2' and *witte '5' > '10' can be reconstructed. This result can be clearly seen in his reconstructions of proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Samoyedic numerals, presented below in Table 2 and Table 3.

1 *üke

2 *kekta

3 *kolme

4 *neljä

5 *witte

6 *kutte

7 f.-perm. *śeććem proto-ug. *Säpt

8 f.-vol. *kakteksa(n) proto-perm. *kikjamзs proto-ug. *ńȣlз

9 f.-vol. *ükteksä(n) proto-perm. *ȯkmзs

10 f.-mord. *kümene saam.-mar.-mans. *luke proto-perm. *das hung. tíz hant. *jɔŋ

20 *koy(e)cV *kusV

100 *śata

Table 2. Reconstructed proto-Finno-Ugric numerals (Janhunen 1977).

Janhunen's reconstruction of proto-Samoyedic numerals, presented below in Table 3, also includes his comments on where the numerals might have come from.

!23

1 *o(-)p derivation of *o(-) '1'

2 *kitä < proto-Uralic *kektä/*käktä

3 *näku(-)r ?derivation with unidentified elements

4 *tettø

5 *sømpø-längkø derivation of an otherwise unknown root

6 *møktu(-)t ? derivation with unidentified elements

7 *seytwø < *seyptø < pre-proeo-Tocharian

8 *kitä(-y-n)+tettø 2x4', compositum of *kitä and *tettø

9 *ämäytumø derivation of *ämäy 'other'

10 *wüøt(t) < proto-Uralic *wixti '5'

100 *yür < proto-Bolgar-Turkic *yür

Table 3. Reconstructed proto-Samoyedic numerals (Janhunen 1977).

According to Table 2, the Finno-Ugric languages share basic numerals from 1 to 6, 20 and 100. According to Table 3, only two of these common basic numerals have cognates in Samoyedic: 2 and 5, which appears in the function of 10 in Samoyedic. The rest of the Samoyedic basic numerals represent post-proto-Uralic innovations. Among the numerals with no cognate in Finno-Ugric, only the item for 4 seems to consist of a single stem morpheme, while other items are composita, derivations, or loanwords. The idea of the item for 5 also functioning as 10 is mentioned in (Vertes 1990: 237), where she suggests that proto-Finno- Ugric *witte '5' can be connected with proto-Finno-Ugric *kate 'hand' and that the formally singular names of pairs of body parts can refer to one part of the pair as well as to both of them, thus to numeral 10 — 2 hands with 10 fingers. However, Honti, who doesn't agree with the idea that proto-Samoyedic and proto-Finno-Ugric share any numerals at all, reports this opinion to be erroneous. He states that numerals take upy strictly determined and constant positions within numerical order. I quote: «'Hand' — '5' — cannot even on occasion have the meaning 'both hands' — '10'» (Honti 1999: 245).

!24 Table 2 above already includes some of Janhunen's thoughts on the etymology of the proto-Samoyedic numerals, below I would like to present several results of the interpretation of the roots of the items for Samoyedic numerals from 1 to 7, 9, 10 and 100 (I exclude the item for 8 as it is a compound of the items for 2 and 4). Interestingly, there are numerous hypotheses for each of the numerals and sometimes they are totally different. Some of them are based on historical facts, on the possible phonological sound changes, but sometimes they seem too much of a personal opinion and intuition. I am not going to describe all the hypotheses, I chose a few that I found to be the most probable ones. I need to mention that I am not going to present morphological changes that might have happened to the described words as this is not a project on diachronic morphology. I am going to present the final results suggested by the scholars as it might be useful for me to find the answer for the main question raised in my thesis. Below, a brief survey is presented. Later in the thesis I take a closer look at possible etymologies of some numerals.

Numeral *o(-)p 'one' Bykonya suggests that the root o-, which can be found in the item for 1 in all Samoyedic languages (as well as in proto-Samoyedic) is the same root that can be found in Samoyedic items with the meaning close to 'beginning' or 'front': Selkup olamqo 'to begin', ol 'entry' ; Enets oro 'before' etcetera (Bykonya 1998: 19).

Numeral *kitä 'two' Ernits states that the Samoyedic items for 1 and 2 appeared at the same time and used to have the opposite meanings: 2 used to mean anything bigger that 1. He supports his hypothesis by connecting the item for 1 with the pronoun 'this one' and the item for 2 — with the pronoun 'that one' (Ernits 1975: 159, 160). According to Bykonya, the item for 2 is a cognate with the word 'soul', 'alter ego', she supports her hypothesis by the idea that the person himself used to be seen as the beginning of everything, and thus his soul, his alter ego — as his continuation, the second numeral in a row (Bykonya 1998: 41).

!25 Numeral *näku(-)r 'three' The Samoyedic item for 3 has triggered a large number of very different hypotheses, including, for example, its possible relation with the Selkup word nagirgu 'draw' (Bykonya 1998: 52), with the Selkup word naha 'shovel for clipping the top part of the snow' (Pelih 1972: 24) or with the Nenets word nahartez 'the middle deer in a team of three' or Nenets nahartezah 'the middle deer in a team of 4 or more' (Tereschenko 1956: 361). Bykonya supports her idea by the fact that the process of drawing usually involves 3 fingers, which, in my opinion, doesn't seem convincing enough. The semantic connection between the numeral 3 and 'shovel for clipping the top part of the snow' is not clear to me at all. Tereschenko's hypothesis also triggers a few questions. It is known that the Nenets, as well as other Samoyeds, have always been deer keepers (Khomich 1976: 67), so they could use deer terms to title the numerals, however, it is not likely that 'the middle deer in a team of three' or 'the middle deer in a team of 4 or more' has any connections with the numeral 3, 'the third deer in a team' or 'a team of three deers' would make more sense.

Numeral *tettø 'four' Joki suggests a relation between the proto-Samoyedic numeral *tettø and the proto- Samoyedic word *tettuame 'much' (Joki 1975: 730). Bykonya draws an analogy with the Samoyedic word tira 'fist' (Bykonya 1998: 57).

Numeral *sømpø-längkø 'five' Considering the facts from two Samoyedic languages — Nenets and Selkup, the Samoyedic item for 5 could be related to the hand or, more specifically, to some actions, that involve the hand: it has a similar root with Nenets sampa 'lull a child asleep, while holding him in one hand' and with Selkup sumpuqo 'to play the tambourine during a shaman's song'. Because of the possible connection between the item for 5 and the shaman's actions, Yoki suggested that this numeral was believed to have magical significance (Yoki 1975: 730).

Numeral *møktu(-)t 'six' The interpretation of the item for 6 suggests its connection with the name of a finger on the other hand; this hypothesis is based on its similarities with the proto-Indo-European word

!26 *weks- 'to grow' ('to grow' is connected to the word 'outgrowth', which is then connected to 'finger on the other hand') (Szemerenyi 1960: 78-79). Interestingly, Bykonya agrees on this possible explanation (Bykonya 1998: 69). However, in my opinion, this hypothesis is completely contrived: to begin with, the connection between 'to grow' and 'finger on the other hand' is way too weak; moreover, not all proto-Indo-European words have cognates in Samoyedic.

Numeral *seytwø 'seven' It is believed that the Samoyedic item for 7 was borrowed from certain Indo-European languages, most probably from pre-proto-Tocharians (Bykonya 1998: 74).

Numeral *ämäytumø 'nine' The Samoyedic item for 9 can be devided into two parts: *ämäy and *tumø. The first part is the proto-Samoyedic word *ämäy 'other', while the second word has the root to- 'numeral'. According to Prokofyev and Bykonya the first part of the word was needed to distinguish the numeral 10, which was seen as some sort of a numeral border and the numeral 9, which was thus a 'different' numeral. However, these ideas don't find any support in the reconstructed proto-Samoyedic item for 10 (Prokofyev 1939: 18; Bykonya 1998: 109).

Numeral *wüøt 'ten' As has been stated above, the proto-Samoyedic *wüøt '10' might have been connected to the proto-Finno-Ugric *witte '5', which means 'hand', according to Vertes, or 'many, much', according to Joki (Vertes 1990: 237; Joki 1975: 729). However, Honti doesn't agree on this etymology (Honti 1999: 245).

Numeral *yür 'hundred' It is believed that the Samoydic item for 100 was borrowed from proto-Bolgar-Turkic *yür '100' (Joki 1952: 124).

As we can see, the hypotheses presented above show that in order to find etymologies for the numerals not only domain knowledge in linguistics and history is needed, but also some

!27 imagination.

4.2. Samoyedic numerals: present state Table 4 shows the present numerals in each of the six Samoyedic languages examined in this study. Data about Nganasan and Selkup is collected from (Helimski 1998), data about Nenets — from (Salminen 1998), data about Kamas — from (Künnap 1999), data about Mator — from (Helimski 1997) and data about Enets — from (Siegl 2013).

Numeral Nganasan Enets Nenets Selkup Kamas Mator

1 ŋuʔǝiʔ ŋolú ngob ukkïr oʔw, oʔm, oʔm, oʔb oʔb

2 šiti šiđi syidya šittï šidǝ kide

3 nagür näxu nyaxor nååkïr nāgur nagur

4 tetǝ tät tyeto tettï tēʔdǝ teite

5 sǝŋhǝlaŋk sob(i)rig sømpolyangk sompïla sumna sümbülä ǝ o

6 mǝtüʔ motu(ʔ) møtoq muktït muktu muktut

7 šajbǝ säu syiqwo seelčï seiʔbü kejbe

8 šitiðǝtǝ šiđiät syidontyeto šittï čääŋkïtïl sēntēʔdǝ kidǝndei köt te

9 ŋamatümǝ näđa xasu-yúd ukkïr čääŋkïtïl amitun obtǝnast köt a

10 biiʔ biʔ yúq köt bijǝʔn čüt

11 biiʔ ŋuʔǝiʔ ŋolú ngob ukkïr kǝl' köt bijǝʔnoɂv čüt oʔb bođad yangnya 12 biiʔ šiti šiđi bođad syidya šittï kǝl' köt bijǝʔnšidǝ čüt kide yangnya 13 biiʔ nagür näxu nyaxor nååkïr kǝl' köt bijǝʔnnāgur čüt bođad yangnya nagur 20 šiti biiʔ šiđuu syidya yúq šittïsar šidǝbiɂ kide čüt

21 šiti biiʔ šiđuu ŋolú syidya yúq šittïsar ukkïr šidǝbiɂ oɂv kide čüt ŋuʔǝiʔ ngob oʔm

!28 Numeral Nganasan Enets Nenets Selkup Kamas Mator

22 šiti biiʔ šiđuu šiđi syidya yúq šittïsar šittï šidǝbiɂ šidǝ kide čüt šiti syidya kide 23 šiti biiʔ šiđuu näxu syidya yúq šittïsar nååkïr šidǝbiɂ kide čüt nagür nyaxor nāgur nagur

30 nagür biiʔ näxubiʔ nyaxor yúq nassar nāƔurbiɂ nagur čüt

40 tetǝ biiʔ tätbiʔ tyeto yúq tɛɛsar kȇrok teite čüt

50 sǝŋhǝlaŋk sobrigbiʔ sømpolyangk sompïlasar jelix sümbülä ǝ biiʔ o yúq čüt

60 mǝtüʔ biiʔ motabiʔ møtoq yúq muktïsar altōn muktut čüt

70 šajbǝ biiʔ säubiʔ syiqwo yúq seelčïsar seiʔbübiɂ kejbe čüt 80 šitiðǝtǝ šiđätbiʔ syidontyeto šittïtɛɛsar sēntēʔdǝbiɂ kidǝndei biiʔ yúq te čüt

90 ŋamatümǝ näđabiʔ xasu-yúd yur köt čääŋkïtïl amitunbiɂ obtǝnast biiʔ toon a čüt

100 djir biiʔ dú ʔ yur toon Ʒüs čür

1000 bî' jir tišča yonor tišča mǝŋ miŋgan

Table 4. The numerals in the Samoyedic languages

Nganasan The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed additively: biiʔ šiti ('10 2') '12' and the numerals from 20 to 99 are formed multiplicatively: šiti biiʔ ('2 10') '20' or both multiplicatively and additively: šiti biiʔ šiti ('2 10 2') '22'. The item for 9 is derived from the proto-Samoyedic item.

Enets

!29 The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed by suffixation: the suffis bođad 'be.more.3SG', is added to bi-kuđ 'ten-ABL.SG' and followed by a cardinal numeral. The item for 11 would then be formed as follows: bi-kuđ ŋolú bođad ('ten- ABL.SG 1 be.more.3SG'), however, in spontaneous speech such clauses are often simplified: ŋolú bođad ('one be.more.3SG') '11'. The numerals from 13 to 19 are formed by the same principles. The item for 20 differs from the rest as it is synchronically unsegmentable. Numerals from 30 to 99 are compounds formed multiplicatively: näxubiʔ ('3 10') '30' or multiplicatively and additively: motubiʔ tät ('6 10 4') '64'. Enets speakers use the Russian item for 'thousand' — tišča.

Nenets The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed by adding the suffix yangnya 'left' to the numerals from 1 to 9, the numerals from 20 to 99 are compounds, formed multiplicatively: syidya yúq ('2 10') '20' or multiplicatively and additively: syidya yúq syidya ('2 10 2') '22'.

Selkup The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals for 8, 9 and 90 are formed substractively: šittï čääŋkïtïl köt ('2 'no' 10') '8'; ukkïr čääŋkïtïl köt ('1 no 10') '9'; köt čääŋkïtïl toon ('10 no 100') '90'. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed additively: ukkir keelj kot ('one extra ten') '11'. The numerals from 20 to 99, except for 80 and 90 are formed by adding the suffix sar 'left': nas-sar ('3 left') '30' or by a combination of suffixation and addition: šittïsar šittï ('2.left 2') '22'. The item for 80 is formed multiplicatively and by suffixation: šittï tɛɛsar ('2 4.left') '80'. Selkup speakers use the Russian word for 'thousand' — tišča. The Selkup numerals for 8 and 9 are considered borrowed from the Yeniseic languages because the method of their formation is significantly different (Polyakov, 1987: 85).

Kamas The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed additively: bijǝʔnoɂv ('10 1') '11' and the numerals from 20 to 99 are formed multiplicatively: šidǝbiɂ ('2 10') '20' or both multiplicatively and additively: šidǝbiɂ šidǝ ('2 10 2') '22'. The items for 40, 50 and 60 differ from the rest as they are synchronically unsegmentable. The

!30 item for 9 is derived from the proto-Samoyedic item.

Mator The numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals. The numerals from 11 to 19 are formed additively: čüt kide ('10 2') '12' and the numerals from 20 to 99 are formed multiplicatively: teite čüt ('4 10') '40' or both multiplicatively and additively: kide čüt kide ('2 10 2') '22'. As can be seen from Table 4, all 4 extant Samoyedic languages and the extinct Kamas and Mator have a decimal (10-based) numeral system (or were reported to have it in their last state). However, some exceptions can be noticed, such as the fact that the item for 8 in all Samoyedic languages, except for Selkup, seem to be a fossilized compound of '2 4'. The Enets word šiđu '20' seems to be synchronically unsegmentable too. Noticeably, numerals from 1 to 7 are primary numerals in all these languages, while the rest of the numerals are compounds. The method to form the numerals from 11 to 19 is the same in all the languages: they are formed additively, while all the numerals from 20 to 99, except for 20 in Nenets and 80 and 90 in Selkup are formed multiplicatively or multiplicatively and additively.

4.3 Counting bases in the Samoyedic languages In order to propose a hypothesis about the counting bases of the Samoyedic languages in their earlier state and of their common predecessor — proto-Samoyedic — I will study five existing hypotheses concerning this issue. This includes the historical and linguistic processes that each of the Samoyedic languages has gone through, with the traditions and the way of living of the peoples speaking these languages, their connections with other peoples, their migration history. I will study the five following hypotheses: quaternary, septimal, nonary, decimal and vigesimal systems. I will provide a theoretical framework for each of the hypotheses, including scholars' opinions on it, their pro and contra arguments. Then my own thoughts, based on the facts discussed above in the thesis, on etymologies, historical and linguistics analysis and logic, will follow. I might agree with some scholars' ideas or, on the other hand, be critical.

4.3.1 Quaternary system one of the hypotheses is that the common predecessor of the Samoyedic languages had a

!31 quaternary (4-based) system (Siegl 2013: 180). The main reason for postulating this hypothesis, which has already been mentioned in 4.2, is the fact that the items for 8 in all Samoyedic languages (as well as in proto-Samoyedic), except for Selkup, are compounds of the type '2 4', formed by multiplication, thus 4 is clearly functioning as a base:

(28) śitiðətə (Nganasan) śiti-ðətə 'two four' 'eight'

(29) šiđiät (Enets) šiđi-tät 'two four' 'eight'

(30) syidontyeto (Nenets) syidon-tyeto 'two four' 'eight'

(31) sēntēʔdǝ (Kamass) sēn-tēʔdǝ 'two four' 'eight'

(32) kidəndeite (Mator) kidən-deite 'two four' 'eight'

(33) *kitäyntettø (proto-Samoyedic) kitäyn-tettø 'two four' 'eight'

Moreover, the item for 80 in Selkup is formed multiplicatively and by suffixation, and 4 is functioning as a base:

!32 (34) šittï tɛɛsar (Selkup) šittï tɛɛ.sar '2 4.left' 'eighty'

However, as we can see from Table 4, in Selkup the item for 8 is constructed differently, using a subtraction operation with 10 functioning as a base:

(35) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt (Selkup) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt '2 no 10' 'eight'

Thus, 4 is functioning as a base to form the items for 6 numerals: 8 in Nganasan, Enets, Nenets, Kamas, Mator and 80 in Selkup. The item for 8 constructed as '2 4' in the Samoyedic languages is believed to be connected with a counting gesture: by showing the fingers of both hands with the thumbs turned in we can signal 8 (Honti, 1999: 247). However, Bykonya believes that the usage of this counting gesture indicates that the Samoyeds used the fingers to count. And this, according to her, is an argument in favour of the decimal system as the Samoyeds, like everyone else, have 10 fingers (Bykonya 1998). In my opinion, this argument sounds quite naive: in many languages the thumb is not a 'finger' (Ehret 2011: 72) as the thumb is opposable to the other four fingers. In my opinion, the fact that the item for 8 in proto-Samoyedic has been constructed as '4 2', thus with 4 functioning as a base, is a very important argument. In the thesis I mostly operate with the numerals of the Samoyedic languages in their later eras, so most of them could be explained by being borrowed in the course of time, without changing the numeral system as a whole. But when we speak of proto-Samoyedic, this is not the case, thus in order to contradict the hypothesis based on this fact, Bykonya should have stronger arguments. Let's assume the hypothesis of the quaternary system to be true. First of all, the numeral '4' should then indicate the base — the most «important» numeral of the system. Joki suggests its relation with the word *tettuame 'much' (Joki 1975: 730); Bykonya — with the Samoyedic word tira 'fist' (Bykonya 1998: 57). As I don't have enough knowledge to choose one of these two etymologies, I have to admit that both of them fit my hypothesis: the item 'much'

!33 represents some sort of composite and the word 'fist', as discussed above, could mean the whole hand (if we accept that the thumb is not considered to be a finger). Secondly, the item for 5 should then indicate the finger of the second hand. According to Yoki, the Samoyedic item for 5 could be related with the hand or, more specifically, with some actions that involve the hand, he also suggests that this numeral was believed to have magical significance (Yoki 1975: 730) (see 4.1). Following the lead of these scholars, who easily find connections between the items that at first consideration seem to have nothing in common, I can easily find a connection between 'acts that involve one hand' and 'the finger on the other hand' and use this etymology in favour of my hypothesis. Next, the item for 8 — the first constructed numeral — is constructed multiplicatively, with 4 functioning as a base, so it also fits the hypothesis. Next, the word for 9, in which an item with the meaning 'different' is included, also fits: it clearly denotes the beginning of the new, «different» counting row. If we then speak of the numeral 12, the next constructed numeral, or 13, the first numeral of the fourth counting row, we have nothing to operate with: it is not reconstructed for proto-Samoyedic. A possible explanation for the fact that proto-Samoyedic does not exhibit the complete system of common numerals will be examined in the Conclusion. To conclude, the hypothesis of a quaternary system in proto-Samoyedic can not be disproved and seems possible.

4.3.2 Septimal system Another existing hypothesis is that the common predecessor of the Samoyedic languages had a septimal (7-based) numeral system. It was first suggested by Castrén (1854). The main argument for this view is that the numeral 7 plays a special role in the traditions of Ugrian peoples as a ''lucky numeral”. Examples of this particular function of the numeral 7 can be found, for example, in Nenets: titles of Nenets narratives often include the numeral 7 — syiqwo nyas ('seven brothers'), syiqwo yalya ('seven days') (Khomich & al. 1985). This function of 7, however, is not a Samoyedic and not even an Ugrian specialty, it is spread all over Eurasia. As the Ugrians had connections with their southern neighbours (for example Ancient Iranians), they have probably adopted this cult of the magic 7 from them. Another possible argument in favour of the hypothesis of a septimal numeral system is the fact that in Selkup the numerals from 1 to 7 (and actually also 10) are the only simple numerals, while 8 and 9 are compounds constructed using a subtraction operation. However,

!34 they are formed with 10 functioning as a base, while in a seven-based system one would perhaps expect 7 to be a base, thus '7+1' and '7+2' rather than '2 'no' 10' and '1 no 10':

(36) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt (Selkup) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt '2 no 10' 'eight'

(37) ukkïrčääŋkïtïl köt (Selkup) ukkïr čääŋkïtïl köt '1 no 10' 'nine'

In other Samoyedic languages, the numerals from 1 to 7 are also simple, but so are 9 and 10. While the Selkup expression for 9 is formed subtractively, the expressions for 9 in Nganasan (ŋamatümǝ) and Kamas (amitun) are derived from the proto-Samoyedic item ämäytumø, the first part of which is *ämäy 'other'. The Enets word näđa '9' is also believed to be derived from the Enets adjective neke 'other, different' (Castrén 1854: 195). Joki considers the proto-Samoyedic ämäytumø '9' to be another reason to postulate a septimal system in proto-Samoyedic: 9 was the second, thus different numeral in the second counting row (Joki 1975: 731). To me none of the three arguments presented above seem to be convincing enough. The fact that 7 had some properties of a «lucky numeral» doesn't mean that it should be a counting base. Samoyeds, who used to follow the religio-cultural practices of shamanism, had many special numerals and words; for example, Yoki suggested to consider the proto-Samoyedic numeral 5 to have magical significance (Yoki 1975: 730). Moreover, as has been mentioned above, this function of 7 is spread all over Eurasia and was probably adopted by the Ugrians from Ancient Iranians. Concerning the fact that in Selkup the numerals from 1 to 7 (and actually also 10) are the only simple numerals, while 8 and 9 are constructed using a subtraction operation, I could argue that this construction is not to be found in any other Samoyedic languages, but it is found in Ket. Both Ket and Selkup are languages of the ob-Yeniseian sprachbund, they always had a connection with each other and the similarities between the languages can be

!35 found on different levels, such as the lexical and grammatical levels (Helimsky 2003). The same subtraction constructions are to be found in Khanty — also a language of the ob- Yeniseian sprachbund. It is quite probable that this numeral construction is a feature of the ob- Yeniseian sprachbund, thus was borrowed by the Selkups from their neighbours and has nothing to do with the proto-Samoyedic or even earlier states of the Selkup counting base. Concerning Joki's hypothesis, it seems that he didn't take into account any numerals apart from the numeral 9, which is the basis of his argument. If 9 is «the 'second' numeral in the second counting row», then 8 should be, consequently, the first numeral in the second counting row, however, it is not marked anyhow particularly, it is simply a compositum of *kitä '2' and *tettø '4'. Moreover, even though adjectives 'different' and 'second' have close meaning they are still too far away from each other to be called synonyms. What is more probable is that the word ämäy 'different' in the numeral ämäytumø '9' signifies the beginning of a new, «different» counting row. Following this logic, it is possible to postulate either a quaternary (4-based) system (see 4.3.1) or an octal (8-based) system (however, I can' find any more reasons that are good enough to develop this hypothesis).

4.3.3 Nonary system Another popular hypothesis is that of the existence of a nonary (9-based) numeral system. In the speech of some speakers of the Tundra dialect of Nenets the strangest and most mysterious numeral of the entire Uralic language family, namely that for 9, is found: xasuyúd. The literal meaning of this is 'Nenets bundle'. In contrast to this, the name for 10 in some dialects is lucayúd, meaning 'Russian bundle'. This led some researchers of the Samoyedic languages (e.g., Khomich, Kupriyanova, Barmich 1985) to the conclusion that the decimal system appeared among the Samoyeds only through Russian influence. However, in another dialect of Nenets — Forest Nenets, and also by some speakers of Tundra Nenets, 10 is simply yúd (Castrén 1854: 195). Prokofyev (1939: 17) writes that when the Nenets used to bring their tribute to the Russians, they used to bind skins of little animals in bundles of 9 pieces. But the Russians, who are more used to bundles of 10, used to unbind them and make new ones — containing 10 skins. Prokofyev thus proposes that a decimal system appeared among the Nenets only through Russian influence. According to other sources, such as Honti (1999) and Bykonya

!36 (1996), the Nenets used to have a 10-based system, despite this trade habit. This procedure is explained by the fact that the Nenets considered 9 to be a magical numeral, due to the cultural influence of Altaic peoples. The item for 9 is thus not an argument in favour of the nonary system, but rather a trade habit difference which is easily explained by some magical functions of this numeral. The Nenets word yú 'bundle, packet' has an almost identical pronunciation to yúq '10', so the 'Nenets 10' and the 'Russian 10' could naturally be interpreted as 'Nenets bundle' and 'Russian bundle' (Honti 1999: 248). Due to this similarity, it is not always clear whether xasuyúd and lucayúd should be translated as 'Nenets 10' and 'Russian 10' or 'Nenets bundle' and 'Russian bundle' accordingly. Bykonya (1996: 107) agrees with Honti and adds that this can rather be an argument in favour of the decimal system, as '10' in many dialects is simply yúd. And the adjective xasu 'Nenets' is then added to yúd '10' (or to yú 'bundle') to form xasuyúd '9' — so 10 is functioning as the base. In my opinion, Bykonya's argument is reasonable. The numeral yúd '10' (or the word 'bundle'), used in Forest Nenets and sometimes in Tundra Nenets, fulfils the function of the counting base — it is used to form the numeral 9 by suppletion — by adding the adjective xasu 'Nenets' or sometimes to form the numeral 10 by adding the adjective luca 'Russian'. If we assume that 9 was the counting base, then it would be logical to presuppose that the word xasu 'Nenets' in the Nenets numeral xasuyúd '9' would be reduced, not the word luca 'Russian' in the Nenets numeral lucayúd '10', like we observe now. Consequently, 9 would be yúd and 10 would be lucayúd, and in reality vice versa — 10 is yúd. Therefore I conclude that there is no reason to consider 9 to be a base in the previous states of Nenets or proto-Samoyeidc. It is clear, however, that the numeral lucayúd '10' appeared in the language after the arrival of the Russians, through Russian influence. I would thus propose the following explanation: yúd has always been used as 10 (or as 'bundle'), with no connection to trade traditions. After the Russians arrived, the Nenets people had to make up an item for 9 (which, most probably, they didn't use in their everyday life as often before) to distinguish the bundles of skins of little animals bound by themselves and bound by the Russians. After that the numerals xasuyúd '9' and lucayúd '10' were adopted and are still being used by the speakers.

4.3.4 Decimal system

!37 The most popular but also, in my opinion, the least interesting hypothesis is that the Samoyedic languages have always had a decimal (10-based) numeral system, which they have now (Honti 1999). The main argument is quite simple: there is no reason to postulate any non-decimal numeral system in the proto-Samoyedic language, as well as in proto-Uralic and in proto-Finno-Ugrian, or their former presence cannot be shown to be probable. It is only the decimal system that can be assumed to have been related to the Finno-Ugrian and the Samoyedic proto-languages. In the present state of the Samoyedic numerals, the numeral 10 is used to form most of the numerals above ten, moreover, as we can see from Table 4, the item for 9 is constructed using a subtraction operation in the Mator and the Selkup languages, also with the numeral 10 functioning as a base:

(38) obtenasta (Mator) ob-tenasta '1 no 10' 'nine'

(39) ukkïrčääŋkïtïl köt (Selkup) ukkïr čääŋkïtïl köt '1 no 10' 'nine'

And 8 is constructed using a subtraction operation in the Selkup language:

(40) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt (Selkup) šittï čääŋkïtïl köt '2 no 10' 'eight'

It is believed by many scholars that the Nenets and Selkup item for 10 is related to the word meaning 'a bunch' or 'a bundle'. Evidence for this hypothesis can be clearly seen in Nenets (see 4.2.4): yúq '10' — yú 'bundle' and also in Selkup, but not in other Samoyedic languages. The Selkup item for 10 is now köt. However, Bykonya writes that there used to be 3 other words for 10: gwet, saru and tot. The difference between them is not quite clear. Prokofyev states that the word 'saru' can be translated as 'bundle' (Prokofyev 1939: 14), Bykonya translates it as 'hand'. Bykonya also suggests that the item köt comes from the word ked — a magical word which was used by Selkup shamans with the meaning close to

!38 'finger' (Bykonya 1994: 213). Honti's other argument in favour of a decimal system is surprisingly unscientific: he states that the Samoyeds, who have always lived in harsh conditions, had a need for a very simple counting system. The decimal system, in his opinion, has many advantages as «it is easy to demonstrate quantity with the "calculator" always with us, our hands and fingers, with the aid of counting gestures». Concerning the fact that 10 is functioning as a base to form the numeral 9 in Selkup and Mator and the numeral 8 in Selkup, it has already been discussed above and I have drawn the conclusion that this operation should be seen as a feature of the ob-Yeniseian sprachbund, which was borrowed by the Selkups from their neighbours and has nothing to do with the proto-Samoyedic or earlier states of the Selkup counting base (see 4.3.2). If we operate with the proto-Samoyedic language, I find it very hard or even impossible to state that 10 was used as a base: firstly, the reconstruction does not include any numerals, which are formed with the use of an item for 10. Secondly, the reconstruction doesn't even include the item for 10 itself — what we see there is a proto-Uralic *wixti '5', that has received a new function. Honti's reasoning about the fact that the decimal system is convenient in everyday life can also be applied to the quaternary system: the «natural calculator» — our hands — is still always with us and we can use the gestures to show different numerals. The main argument of those who believe that the decimal system has always been the case in the Samoyedic languages is that most of the present numerals are constructed with the use of '10' functioning as a base — and I can't disagree. Indeed, now and in the latest states of the Samoyedic languages '10' has been the counting base. But concerning the numerals of the proto-Samoyedic era, there is a much more successful candidate for this position.

4.3.5 Vigesimal system The Enets numeral šiđuu 'twenty' differs from the other higher powers of ten ('30', '40', '50' etcetera), because it is not formed multiplicatively (see Table 4). Instead, it seems to be synchronically unsegmentable. Some scholars, for example Siegl (2013: 180), consider this fact as a possible reason to postulate a vigesimal (20-based) system. If we accept this argument, we have to admit that it refers only to the earlier stages of Enets, but not to proto-

!39 Samoedic. However, I doubt that it is true for any of these two. As we can see from Table 4, the Nenets šiđuu '20' is not used to construct other numerals, divisible by 20: 40, 60, and 80 use 10 as the base. I propose to treat 20 as one of the irregularities that can be found in other languages of the world, for example, in Russian or English (see 2.3). The question left to answer is what could be the reason for this irregularity. The numeral 20 is also unsegmentable in a variety of other Uralic languages (e.g. Udmurt, Komi, and Hungarian). However, it is undeniable, that the Enets numeral šiđuu '20' is somehow connected to the numeral šiđi '2'. The same is to be found in Udmurt and Komi, in the sense that the items for 2 and 20 are similar in both of these languages: Udmurt kyzj '20' and kyk '2'; Komi kyzj '20' and kyk '2'. Based on these examples, I would propose the following: the Enets šiđuu '20' used to be formed as the numeral for 20 in other Samoyedic languages, by multiplication of 2 and 10. However, in the course of time, the part meaning 10 was reduced. Such a process of simplification in Enets has already been discussed above: Enets speakers simplify the clause bi-kuđ ŋolú bođad ('ten-ABL.SG 1 be.more.3SG') '11' to ŋolú bođad ('one be.more.3SG') '11', so the part with the meaning of 10 is reduced (see 4.2). If this process occurred with the numerals 11-19, there is a reason to believe that the same could have happened with the numeral 20. There is a possibility that this process happened due to the influence of Komi or Udmurt: in search of confirmation for my hypothesis, I have discovered that the nationalities of the village Potapovo, where the majority of the remaining Enets speakers live, include Komis (Siegl 2013: 51). However, Komis represent the minor nationalities of Potapovo, so most likely it is just a process of simplification common for the languages.

5. Discussion I have studied 5 different hypotheses concerning the counting bases of numeral systems of the Samoyedic languages in the present and in the past: quaternary, septimal, nonary, decimal and vigesimal systems. I have provided the theoretical background for each of these hypotheses, followed by my own interpretation, based on the facts discussed above in the thesis, on etymologies, historical and linguistics analysis. I have presented arguments against septimal, nonary and vigesimal systems and arguments in favour of a quaternary system in

!40 proto-Samoyedic, followed by a decimal system, appearing in the later state of proto- Samoyedic and in the Samoyedic languages. The arguments I present for a quaternary system can be found in the reconstructed proto-Samoyedic numerals, where 4 is functioning as a base, and in their etymologies. Quaternary and decimal systems are both simple and practical in terms of the use of the "natural calculator" — our hands and fingers. Apparently, at the time when '4' was functioning as a base, the proto-Samoyeds opposed the thumb to the other four fingers, thus they considered their hand to have 4 fingers, which explains the use of the quaternary numeral system. Now, however, all the Samoyedic languages have decimal systems, and this fact is undeniable. At some point between the formation of proto-Samoyedic and its break-up into the Samoyedic languages this shift from a quaternary to a decimal system has happened. Let me present one interesting hypothesis, which might explain this shift. There are no language groups or families in the Northern or Central Eurasia aged 5,000 years and less which do not exhibit a complete system of common numerals, and there are no groups or families aged 6,000 and more that do (Helimski 2000: 491). This has led Helimski to the conclusion that some major counting system shift, perhaps the introduction of the decimal counting system, spread throughout Eurasia around 5,000-6,000 years ago and thus led to establishing a new numeral system (Helimski 2000: 492). Therefore there are almost no chances of reconstructing the whole numeral system for the proto-languages disintegrated earlier than 5,000-6,000 years ago, for example proto-Samoyedic. The Uralic proto-Period ended between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago and then proto-Uralic was divided into proto-Samoyedic and proto- Finno-Ugric (see 3.1). According to Helimski's hypothesis, the Eurasian major counting system shift happened around 5,000-6,000 years ago. The formation of proto-Samoyedic happened before the shift, which allows for my hypothesis of a quaternary numeral system in proto-Samoyedic, which was replaced by a decimal numeral system in the later state of proto- Samoyedic and in the Samoyedic languages later on. Proto-Samoyedic is thought to have disintegrated around 2000 years ago ((Carpelan & Parpola 2001: 110), so the shift has happened between the disintegration of proto-Uralic and proto-Samoyedic. The numeral system partly reconstructed for proto-Samoyedic presents the system before the shift and is therefore 4-based, the numeral systems reconstructed for the Samoyedic languages are 10- based numerals systems that appeared after the shift.

!41 Helimski provides clear reasons to postulate this hypothesis, however, he doesn't explain why this shift has happened. Allow me to speculate on how this change may have occurred. I suggest that this happened due to intensive contacts between the speakers of the Uralic languages and the Indo-European peoples (of course, if we don't believe in the existence of the Indo-Uralic language family consisting of Indo-European and Uralic7). In general, therefore, I suggest to restore the following development of numeral systems in the Samoyedic languages: a quaternary system in Proto-Samoyedic ca. 8,000 and 6,000 years ago, followed by a decimal system in the Samoyedic languages ca. 5,000-6,000 years ago.

6. Conclusion We have approached the destination of our journey — after studying 5 different hypotheses concerning the counting bases of numeral systems in the Samoyedic languages I have drawn a conclusion that there was a quaternary system in Proto-Samoyedic between ca. 8,000 and 6,000 years ago, which was followed by a decimal system in the Samoyedic languages starting ca. 5,000-6,000 years ago due to intensive contacts between the Uralic peoples and the Indo-European peoples. I have to admit that I have limited myself to work mostly with the Samoyedic languages. Within the framework of this thesis it was enough to draw my conclusions; however, I propose that a good next step would be to check my hypothesis, including the Eurasian major counting shift suggested by Helimski, on other Uralic languages. Moreover, taking into account the diversity of possible etymologies of the numerals presented in the paper, it could be useful to conduct etymological analysis myself as a continuation of this research. I hope that my findings can contribute to the general typological picture of the numeral systems of the world's languages.

7 Indo-Uralic is a putative language family consisting of Indo-Europea and Uralic, first proposed by Vilhelm Thomsen in 1869 (Pedersen 1931: 336).

!42 References

Balzer M. (1999). The Tenacity of Ethnicity: A Siberian Saga in Global Perspective. Princeton: Princeton U. Press. Blažek V. (1990). New Finno-Ugric-Indo-Iranian lexical parallels. In: Uralo-Indogermanica. Moscow. Burykin A. (2005). Languages Of Small Peoples Of The North, Siberia And The Far East In Dynamic Change Of The Language Environment Of Education. Saint-Petersburg. Bykonya V. (1998). Imja chislitel'noe v kartine mira sel'kupov. Tomsk: Tomsk State Pedagogical Institute. Carpelan C., Parpola A. (2001). Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspective. In: Carpelan C., Parpola A., Koskikallio P. (eds.). Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and archaeological considerations. Helsinki: The Finno-Ugrian Society. Castrén M. (1854). Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St- Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Castrén M. (1940). Samojedische Volksdichtung. In: Mémoires de la Société Finno- ougrienne. Chernetsov V., Mozhinskaya W. (1974). Prehistory of Western Siberia. In: Antropology of the North: Translation from Russian Sources, Volume 9. Mobtreal and London: Arctiv Institute of North America. Collinder, B. (1940). Jukagirisch und Uralisch. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Comrie B. (2013). Numeral Bases. In: Dryer, M., Haspelmath, M. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. De Vries L. (1993). Gestures, body parts and numbers: Greater Awyu numerals in typological perspective. In: Storch A., Dimmendaal G. (eds.) Number – Constructions and Semantics: Case studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and oceania. University of Cologne. Ehret C. (2011). History and the testimony of language. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ernits E. (1975). O proishozhdenii f.-u. *kVktV «dva» s uchetom tipov razvitija chislitel'nyh «dva» v raznyh jazykah. In: Sovetskoe finnougrovedenie. XI. Helimski E. (1997). Die Matorische Sprache: Wörterverzeichnis - Grundzüge der Grammatik - Sprachgeschichte. Szeged: Benjamins. Helimski E. (1998). Nganasan. In: Abondolo D. (ed.) The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. Helimski E. (1998). Selkup. In: Abondolo D. (ed.) The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. Helimski E. (2000). Komparativistika, uralistika. Lekcii i stat'i. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Helimski, E. (2003). Areal groupings (Sprachbünde) within and across the borders of the Uralic language family: A survey. Nyelvtudományi közlemények, 100, 156-167. Honti L. (1993). Die Grundzahlwörter der uralischen Sprachen. In: Bibliotheca Uralica, 11. Budapest. Honti L. (1999). The numeral system of the Uralic languages. In: Gvozdanovic J. (ed.) Numeral types and Changes Worldwide. Berlin/New York.

!43 Ifrah G. (2000). The Universal History of Numbers: From prehistory to the invention of the computer. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Janhunen J. (1977). Samojedischer Wortschatz: Gemeinsamojedischen Etymologien. In: Castrenianumin toimitteita 17. Helsinki. Janhunen J. (1998). Samoyedic. In: Daniel Abondolo (ed.). The Uralic Languages. London: Routledge. Joki A. (1975). Uber einige Zahlworter im Samojedischen. Tallin: CIFU. Karpinski L. (1925). The History of Arithmetic. Chicago, IL: Rand, McNally, & Co. Khomich L. (1976). Problemy jetnogeneza i jetnicheskoj istorii nencev. Leningrad: Nauka. Khomich L., Kupriyanova Z., Barmich M. (1985). Nenetskiy yazyk. Leningrad: Prosveschenie. Koşaner ö. (2016). Numerals in Turkish. In: open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6. Kryukova E. (2013). Comparative analysis of numeral systems in Ket and Selkup. In: TPSU Bulletin. Tomsk: TPSU. Künnap A. (1999). Kamass. In: Languages of the World/Materials, 185. München: Lincom. Matveev A. (1965). Novye dannye o kamasinskom jazyke i kamasinskoj toponimike. In: Voprosy toponomastiki, 2. Sverdlovsk. Menninger K. (1992). Number words and number symbols: A cultural history of numbers. New York: Dover Publications. Miller G. (1791). Opisanie zhivushhih v Kazanskoj gubernii jazycheskih narodov, jako to cheremis, chuvash i votjakov. Saint Petersburg. Napolskikh V. (2003). Uralic Numerals: is the evolution of numeral system reconstructable? In: Linguistica uralica, 39. Nikolaeva, I. 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pedersen H. (1931). Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century: Methods and Results. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Pelih G. (1972). Proishozhdenie sel'kupov. Tomsk: TSU. Prokofyev G. (1939). Chislitel'nye v samoedskih jazykah. In: Sovetskij Sever, 4. Salminen T. (1998). Nenets. In: Abondolo D. (ed.) The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. Salminen T. (2002). Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies. In: Lingvisticheskij bespredel. Sbornik statej k 70-letiju A. I. Kuznecovoj. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. Siegl F. (2013). Materials on Forest Enets, an Indigenous Language of Northern Siberia. In: Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne. Sinor D. (1988). The Uralic languages: Description, history, and foreign influences. Leiden: Brill. Szemerenyi O. (1960). Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals. Heidelberg: Winter. Tereshchenko N. (1956). Materialy i issledovanija po jazyku nencev. Moskow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Vértes E. (1990). Szibériai nyelvrokonaink hitvilága. Budapest. Weibull N. (2004). A historical survey of number systems. Technical report, Chalmers University of Technology. Witsen N. (1705). Noord en oost Tartarye. Allard (ed.) Amsterdam: F. Halma.

The photograph on the Title page was taken in by olga Kazakevich during our expedition to the Yamal Nenets Autonomous District to work on Selkup in 2013.

!44