Innovative Numerals in Malayo- Polynesian Languages Outside of Oceania

Home , Ambelau, As language, Bacan Islands, Buru language, Moskona language, Naueti language

Innovative numerals in Malayo- Polynesian languages outside of Oceania

Antoinette Schappera & Harald Hammarströmb Leiden Universitya, Universität zu Kölna, Radboud Universityb & Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropologyb

In this paper we seek to draw attention to Malayo- Polynesian languages outside of the Oceanic subgroup with innovative bases and complex numerals involving various additive, subtractive and multiplicative procedures. We highlight that the number of languages showing such innovations is more than previously recognised in the literature. Finally, we observe that the concentration of complex numeral innovations in the region of eastern Indonesia suggests Papuan influence, either through contact or substrate. However, we also note that socio-cultural factors, in the form of numeral taboos and conventionalised counting practices, may have played a role in driving innovations in numerals.

1. INTRODUCTION1 There has been much discussion of the developments in innovative numeral formations in Oceanic languages. Galis (1960) observed that many AN languages to the north of New Guinea have exchanged the ancestral decimal system for various quinary systems. More recently, Dunn et al. (2008:739) observed that the decimal system in their sample of 22 western Oceanic languages was not very stable, having changed in almost half the languages to quinary systems. Blust (2009:274) suggests that the emergence of such different numeral systems in Oceanic languages is due to intensive contact and trading between Austronesian and Papuan language-speaking peoples. Smith (1988:51-53) similarly observed that counting systems were not particularly stable due to trading and exchange relations between AN and Papuan language speaking peoples in Morobe province of Papua New Guinea. However, he noted that the influence was not one way but that Austronesian languages could

1 We thank David Mead for his insights into South Sulawesi languages, and Marian Klamer and Leif Asplund for discussions on Sumba languages. We also thank David Kamholz for his insights into Cenderawasih languages and for help with access to the typescript Starrenburg 1915. Schapper further thanks Emilie T.B. Wellfelt for discussions on the cultural significance of numerals in Indonesia and Timor-Leste. Schapper’s research was conducted as part of an ESF-EuroCORES (EuroBABEL) research project with financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

1 not only lose their inherited decimal system but that Papuan languages can also acquire it. In this paper, we turn our attention to the comparatively little remarked upon innovative formation of numerals in Malayo-Polynesian (MP) languages outside of the Oceanic (OC) subgroup (cf., e.g., Ossart 2004). Based on a survey of the numerals in 470 languages, this paper reports on the results of the first systematic investigation of innovative complex numerals in non-OC MP languages. The precise aims of our study are threefold:

(i) to describe the variety of innovations of complex numerals (e.g., 10-1 = 9) and of non-decimal numeral bases (e.g., base-5, base-20); (ii) to draw attention to the concentration and diversity of such innovative numeral formations in MP languages of eastern Indonesia and East Timor, and; (iii) give preliminarily suggestions as to the reasons for the geographical skewing of such innovative numeral formation in non-OC MP languages.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the terminology that we use to describe the different types of patterns of numeral formation that are observed. Section 3 examines the variety of the innovative ways of forming numerals in non-OC MP numerals. In particular, we highlight the very limited number of numeral innovations in WMP area (the Philippines, western Indonesia and mainland South-East Asia) MP languages. This is contrasted with CEMP area (eastern Indonesia and East Timor) MP languages which harbour at least a dozen distinct innovations.2 In section 4 we seek to identify causal factors that may have played a role in driving the multitude of numeral innovations in the CEMP area. We observe that the areal concentration of complex numeral innovations suggests influence from Papuan languages. We further note that socio-cultural factors, in the form of numeral taboos and conventionalised counting practices, are likely to have contributed to numeral innovation. Section 5 concludes the discussion.

2. TERMINOLOGICAL PRELIMINIARIES Numerals are ‘spoken normed expressions that are used to denote the exact number of objects for an open class of objects in an open class of social situations with the whole speech community in question’ (Hammarström 2010: 11). A numeral system is thus the arrangement of individual numeral expressions together in a language.

2 Given the problematic nature of the WMP and CEMP nodes in the AN tree (see, e.g., Adelaar 2005), we use the terms “WMP area” and “CEMP area” to refer to broad geographical regions in which MP languages are spoken and not to genealogical groupings.

2 For the purposes of the present paper, a numeral system may be classified as follows:

Base-5 (or quinary): if more than half the expressions 6-9 are formed as 5+1, .., 5+4 respectively Base-10 (or decimal): if more than half the expressions 20-99 are formed as x*10+y where x, y range from 1..9 Base-20 (or vigesimal): if more than half the expressions 20-99 are formed as x*20+y where x ranges from 1..9, and y from 0..19

A numeral system may be both quinary and decimal or both quinary and vigesimal (in fact, all bona fide attested quinary systems are also either decimal or vigesimal – see Hammarström 2010). So, for instance, Pazeh has a mixed-base numeral system in which numerals ‘six’ to ‘nine’ are formed with a quinary base and higher numerals with a decimal base. By contrast, Saisiyat has only a decimal base; ‘six’ does not constitute a base in the language even though it is used in forming the numeral ‘seven’. The fact that Saisiyat ‘six’ is limited to building only one other higher numeral means that it does not meet the requirements for basehood as given above.

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE.

Whilst Saisiyat ‘six’ does not constitute a base in the language, its use in the numeral ‘seven’ draws attention to another kind of numeral formation with which we are also concerned in this paper. We are not only interested in the numeral bases in a language, but more broadly the internal composition of numerals, that is, if and how numerals are made up out of other numeral expressions. We call a monomorphemic numeral a “simplex numeral”, and a numeral composed of several numeral expressions a “complex numeral”. To describe (i) the arithmetical relation between component elements in a complex numeral, and (ii) the role of component elements in arithmetical operations3, the following terms are used:

“additive numeral”: a numeral where the relation between components parts of a complex numeral is one of addition. The component parts are “augend” and “addend”. So, for example, in the equation 6+1 = 7, the augend is 6 and the addend is 1. “subtractive numeral”: a numeral where the relation between component parts of a complex numeral is

3 It is of course possible for arithmetical operations to be used in conjunction with one another, e.g., 3x20 + 5+2 for ‘67’. Since these can still be accurately characterised with a combination of the three basic operations (additive, subtractive and, multiplicative), we restrict ourselves to these terms.

3 one of subtraction. The component parts are “subtrahend” and “minuend”. So, for example, in the equation 10−2 = 8, the subtrahend is 2 and the minuend is 10. “multiplicative numeral”: a numeral where the relation between components parts of a complex numeral is one of multiplication. The component parts are “multiplier” and “multiplicand”. So, for example, in the equation 3x2 = 6, the multiplier is 3 and the multiplicand is 2.

Our analysis of numerals breaks down each number expression into morphemes. The meaning, if known, of a morpheme can be inferred from the meaning of it in isolation or inferred from the mathematical equation the number expression constitutes. Throughout this paper we rely on the definitions made in this section. We repeatedly make use of the terms presented here and the reader is referred to this section for clarification of any terminology.

3. DATA A decimal counting system can be reconstructed for proto-Austronesian (Blust 2009a: 268-274). This system is found spread throughout the Austronesian world with easily recognisable cognates and it can be reconstructed to various lower nodes of the Austronesian tree, such as proto-Oceanic. This can be seen by comparing the reconstructed PAN and POC numeral forms given in Table 2. In the following subsections, we will see that multiple Austronesian languages outside of the Oceanic subgroup have replaced these simplex etymological numerals with innovative complex numerals. The majority of our discussion deals with innovations in numerals ‘six’ to ‘nine’. However, in cases of base changes (e.g., decimal > vigesmal) we also discuss the expression of the numerals ‘ten’ and ‘hundred’. Unless otherwise stated, however, the reader should understand there has been no base change and that, for instance, *Ratus for ‘hundred’ is retained. All data is cited in a unified IPA transcription from the earliest known attestations to avoid interference from any post-historical changes. However, unless otherwise noted, for all languages cited, all later attestations (including own fieldwork by the second author on Bedoanas, Erokwanas, Yaur, Yeresiam, Yeretuar and Wandamen in 2010) agree with the earliest sources except for transcriptional matters irrelevant for the present paper.

TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE.

3.1. Sumba In three languages of western Sumba we find innovative numerals for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’. They are Lamboya, Kodi and Weyewa, and their

4 numerals are set out in Table 3. The data are from Wielenga (1917: 67) and Leif Asplund (p.c., 2011), and [~] separates different or alternative forms.

TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE.

The innovative ‘eight’ numerals in all three languages involve reflexes of *Sepat ‘four’ and are taken to be a complex multiplicative numeral 4x2. The forms for ‘eight’ appear to go back to a complex word composed of a sequence of morphemes etymologically related to the causative morpheme pV- followed by (n)do ‘two’ and pata ‘four’, for instance: Lamboya podo-pata ‘CAUS/VBZ-two-four’ ‘to make two fours’ (cf. Wielenga 1917: 67- 69; who translates Weyewa pondopata ‘eight’ as ‘two times four’). ‘Nine’ in Lamboya and Kodi are subtractive numerals involving a reflex of *esa/isa ‘one’. Wielenga (1917: 67) suggests the etymology of Kodi ɓanda iha ‘nine’ to be ‘the one not counted’. We interpret this to mean that the word is composed of three morphemes: ba-nda-iha ‘COMP- NEG-count’, a subtractive numeral ‘nine’ which literally means ‘[ten] one not counted’. Note that today’s Kodi has a complementiser ba and a negation nda (< PCMP negation *ta ‘no, not’, Blust 1993). The subgrouping of western Sumba languages is not well-understood. As such, we adopt a conservative approach and posit two separate innovations here. The first occurred in a hypothetical common ancestor of Weyewa, Lamboya and Kodi and replaced a reflex of PAN *walu ‘eight’ with the multiplicative numeral. The second occurred in the common ancestor of only Lamboya and Kodi and replaced *Siwa ‘nine’ with the subtractive numeral.

3.2. Flores-Lembata Table 4 presents an overview of the languages of Flores and Lembata which show numeral innovations. Numerals innovations in Flores are limited to a group of six neighbouring languages in the centre of the island. In these, identical complex numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’ have been innovated using several different procedures: ‘six’ (5+1) and ‘seven’ (5+2) are quinary additive numerals; ‘eight’ (2x4) is quaternary multiplicative, and; ‘nine’ ([10]-1) is a subtractive numeral. The forms for ‘nine’ feature reflexes of PAN *isa ‘one’ and a negator *ta4, possibly followed by a reflex of an existential verb ‘to be’, as in, for example, Rongga ta-ra-esa < ‘NEG-BE-one ‘(ten) not/without one’. Ende, Keo, Lio, Ngadha and Nage subgroup together (cf. Blust 2008b: 452). While Rongga’s affiliation is not discussed in the literature (e.g.,

4 Blust (1993) reconstructs a negator *ta ‘no, not’ to Proto-Central Malayo-Polynesian (PCMP). Whilst the existence of the CMP subgroup is the subject of debate (see, e.g. Donohue & Grimes 2008, Blust 2009b, Schapper 2011), it is clear that a negator *ta is reconstructable to smaller sub-groupings in the eastern Indonesian area.

5 Blust 2008a) it has been suspected to subgroup with Ngadha rather than Manggarai, as previously assumed (Arka 2009:90). It is likely that these Flores languages form a low-level subgroup and as we such we treat the shared numeral innovations as the result of a single innovation in a common ancestor.

6 TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

The numerals of Kedang, spoken Lembata island to the east of Flores, show a different set of numeral innovations. Kedang ‘eight’ is formed by a quaternary multiplicative, as in the central Flores languages. However, whilst the formatives in the Kedang complex numeral, butu ‘four’ and rai ‘two’, appear to be related to those in the Flores languages’ quaternary multiplicative, there is an interesting difference: in Kedang the ‘four’ element precedes the ‘two’ element, whereas in the Flores instances the ‘four’ element always follows the ‘two’ element (e.g., Nganda rua butu ‘eight’ < rua ‘two’ plus butu ‘four’. In contrast to the subtractive pattern in central Flores, Kedang ‘nine’ is an additive numeral (5+4). Kedang is the only language on Lembata island that has innovative ‘eight’ and ‘nine’. The Lamaholot varieties spoken elsewhere on Lembata retain the PAN decimal system. The Kedang numeral innovations thus appear to have occurred in that language independent of other Austronesian languages in the area.

3.3. Timor In three languages of Timor we find innovative additive base-five numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’ (Table 5). All three retain a dedicated lexeme for ‘ten’. The languages are Tokodede spoken in North-Central Timor, Mambae spoken in Central Timor-Leste and Naueti spoken in South-East Timor-Leste.

TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE

In Tokodede ‘six’ to ‘nine’ are formed with a conjunction, wou ‘and’ plus a digit ‘one’ to ‘four’. No numeral ‘five’ is present, but its value is merely understood from context, i.e., ‘six’ is simply ‘plus one’, ‘seven’ ‘plus two’ and so forth. Mambae has a similar pattern: ‘six’ to ‘nine’ are formed with a conjunction, nai, plus a digit ‘one’ to ‘four’. Lim ‘five’ is only optionally present. So, for instance, ‘seven’ can be expressed either as lim nai rua ‘five and two’ or as nai rua ‘and two’. In Naueti kailima ‘five’ is always present in additive numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’. The additive procedure is expressed by the morpheme resi ‘plus, more’. The numeral ‘six’ is noteworthy in all three languages because of the extra nasal segment [n] they include. This reflects the PAN numeral ligature *ŋa (Blust 2009a: 269), which appears to have been used exclusively to link units of ‘one’ in complex numerals.5 As a result, the Naueti numeral kailima resin ‘five plus’ does not appear so anomalous for the absence of the numeral ‘one’, since the numeral ‘one’ can be inferred from the presence of the ligature (resin < *resi-na).6 These additive five numerals in Timor appear to have been innovated independently. This is almost certainly the case for Naueti as against Tokodede and Mambae. Naueti is isolated from the other languages with innovative base-five numerals, and intervening Austronesian languages have regular reflexes of inherited AN numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’.

5 Cross-linguistically, the use of ligatures for units of one is very common, e.g., French vingt-et-un ‘21’, literally ‘twenty and one’, but vingt-deux ’22’, literally ‘twenty - two’. 6 Arnaud & Campagnolo (1998:V2:n868) have resina as opposed to resin here.

7 3.4. Western-central Maluku Several closely related languages in the Western-Central subgroup of central Maluku7 have innovative subtractive numerals for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’. The forms are given in Table 6.8

TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE

Collins (1981:36) argues that the innovative numerals are reconstructable to the common ancestor of the three languages. The numerals were in the proto-language formed by combining a prefix *ta- signalling the substrative procedure with a reflex of *Dua ‘two’ in ‘eight’ and *isa ‘one’ in ‘nine’. The proposed proto-forms are set out in (1).

Proto-Buru-Sula-Taliabo numerals according to Collins (1981:36) (1) 8: *ta-rua ‘minus two’ ~ *walu 9: *ta-sia ‘minus one’ ~ *siwe

Since Collins set-up a Sula-Taliabo subgroup to the exclusion of Buru, the cross- cutting *ta-rua isogloss, common to Sula and Buru but not Taliabo, presents a problematic innovation. To explain it Collins proposes that the Sula-Taliabo-Buru proto- language also had etymological parallel forms and that the daughter languages chose to retain only one form each; thus, the retention of the etymological walu in Taliabo. A methodology that reconstructs parallel forms followed by ad hoc retentions can explain any data and thus not count as an adequate explanation. Collins (1981)'s Sula-Taliabo subgroup is argued on the strength of three phonological innovations r > h, t > c /_# and ʔ > h. However, Collins (1981)'s own description of these innovations exposes their weakness as evidence for a Sula-Taliabo subgroup. Firstly, the reflex of r in Buru is uncertain, and may include Buru as well, according to Collins (1981:33-34)9. Secondly, t > c is not observed in Sula (Sula shows t > Ø) – an intermediate c is only posited to explain a vowel change (1981:32). But, as far as we can tell, this vowel change could just as well have another another origin than an intermediate c. Thirdly, actually only Taliabo shows ʔ > h, while Sula and Buru have ʔ > Ø, and Collins (1981:35) posits that Sula once did undergo ʔ > h followed by a subsequent h > Ø. Clearly, a preferable solution is to reject the Sula-Taliabo subgroup and posit a subgroup for Sula and Buru based on the *ta-rua innovation and common phonological innovations such as ʔ > Ø and y > Ø. This solution is also preferable to a borrowing scenario since the innovation extends to all dialects of Sulaic and Buruic and, in any case, it would be odd to borrow only the numeral ‘eight’.

7 Collins (1981, 1983:20) subclassifies the West Central Maluku languages Ambelau, Buru, Sula and Taliabo. Collins (1989) explores some Taliabo dialects, of which Kadai is an outlier. Grimes (2000, 2009) adds Hukumina and Lisela and Grimes and Grimes (1984) separate Mangole from Sula. All divisions are argued for by phonological innovations. 8 Ambelau as recorded by Wallace (1869:623) is not part of the numeral innovations. 9 An anonymous reviewer points to unpublished work establishing that the reflex is indeed /h/ “in nearly all well-established etymologies”.

8 The etymology of initial *ta- morpheme is equivocal. Collins (1981:43) suggests that *ta- could be related to Soboyo ta- ‘towards’, but we find the semantic link between subtraction and allative motion to be weak and not supported cross-linguistically (Hanke 2005). Similarly, we conclude that it is unlikely to have meant ‘ten’. Reflexes of ‘ten’ in these languages (e.g., Buru polo) have no commonality with the form *ta-. Furthermore, it is cross-linguistically usual for subtractive numerals to have some lexeme overtly expressing the subtraction (Greenberg 1978: 259). Most notably, *ta- is identical to the morpheme found in the Flores-Lembata languages’ subtractive numeral for ‘nine’ and may be also a reflex of an earlier negator (cf. innovative negators in Buru moo ‘no, not’, and Taliabo daaŋ ‘no, not’).

3.5. Aru Complex numerals for ‘seven’ and ‘eight’ are found in the languages of Aru. The data from seven Aru languages is set out in Table 7. The innovations are found in all Aru languages for which we have data and appear to be reconstructable to their immediate common ancestor, Proto-Aru (PARU).

TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE

The PARU numeral ‘eight’ is an innovative multiplicative numeral composed of *kawa ‘four’ and *rua ‘two’. This compound is still plainly evident in many of the modern Aru language. For instance, Kola kafarua ‘eight’ is clearly composed from kafa ‘four’ and rua ‘two’. The PARU numeral ‘seven’ is an innovative additive numeral: the innovative PARU *dubu ‘six’ was compounded with another morpheme *sam apparently denoting the additive operation ‘plus 1’. The components of this compound numeral are still readily apparent in modern Ujir dubusam ‘seven’ and Dobel dubujam ‘seven’, while in other languages the numeral forms have been reduced through the loss of a medial syllable (e.g., Manombai dubem ‘seven’ < *dubam < *dubusam).

3.6. Cenderawasih Bay Languages on the New Guinea mainland in Cenderawasih Bay display a wide range of innovations involving complex numerals. Unlike the PAN decimal system, languages in this region have mixed numeral systems, variously combining base-5, base-10 and base- 20. Consider Tables 8 and 9 with numeral data from languages in western and eastern Cenderawasih Bay respectively.

TABLE 8 & 9 ABOUT HERE

Base-5 numerals are attested in all Cenderawasih Bay languages for numerals ‘six’ to ‘nine’. There is, however, variation in how ‘ten’ is expressed:

(i) a simplex numeral for ‘ten’ (Wandamen-Windesi, Dusner, Yaur, Moor & Waropen) which can be considered a ‘base’; (ii) a complex numeral for ‘ten’ formed through the multiplicative operation of 5x2 (Tandia and Yeretuar (Umar)) , and;

9 (iii) a complex numeral for ‘ten’ formed through an additive operation of 5+5 (Yeresiam).

Numerals for ‘ten’ expressed by means of strategy (ii) show significant differences in the details of their composition. In (2) we set out the identifiable morphemes in ‘ten’ in Tandia and Yeretuar (Umar). We see that in each case there is a morpheme whose meaning cannot be established, but that its position relative to the numerals ‘five’ and ‘two’ is different in each of the languages.

(2) a. Tandia marusibè ‘10’ < ma ‘5’ + rusi ‘2’ + bè ‘?’ b. Yeretaur (Umar) maßtedih ‘10’ < maßt- ‘?’ (< ma- ‘hand/arm’, -ßt- ‘?’) + edih ‘2’

Yeresiam is unique in that it has a body part variant of strategy (iii). In the language, ‘ten’ can be expressed not only as ‘5+5’, but also as ‘two hands/arms’. ‘Hand/arm’ lexemes are also present in complex numerals in other Cenderawasih languages. Whilst Yeresiam and indeed the majority of Cenderawasih languages retain a reflex of PAN *lima for ‘five’, Tandia, Yeretaur (Umar) and Yaur have innovated new forms for this numeral incorporating their lexeme for ‘hand/arm’. In (3) we set out the relationship between the ‘hand/arm’ lexeme and the initial morpheme of the numeral ‘five’ in these three languages. In each case, we see that ‘five’ involves a second morpheme which has no known meaning and/or etymology; its function may simply have been to mark that the root ‘hand/arm’ lexeme had a numerical value.

(3) a. Tandia mara:he ‘5’ < ma- ‘hand/arm’ + ra:he ‘?’ : mamu:nò ‘hand/arm’, mamaʔègèrè ‘finger’, mamʔu ~ mamaʔuʔò:ja ‘elbow’, mamuja:t ‘fingernail’. b. Yeretaur (Umar) matehi < ma(d)- ‘hand/arm’ + tehi ‘?’: ma ~ mádi ‘hand/arm’, maddun ‘finger’, maddun jat ‘fingernail’. c. Yaur ßraʤarie < ßra- ‘hand/arm’ + ʤarie ‘?’: ßraʔugwaaʤe ‘hand/arm’, ßraroßre ‘finger’, ßraroßiaʔre ‘fingernail’.

Vigesimal bases are an invariant feature of Cenderawasih languages. In the majority of languages ‘twenty’ is involves the lexeme ‘person’ ( < 10 fingers and 10 toes). Compare the nouns given in (4) with the numerals for ‘twenty’ in Table 11 and Table 12.

‘Person’ in Cenderawasih languages (4) Wandamen-Windesi siniotu; Tandia sinòtu; Dusner snontu; Yeretaur nomtuho; Yaur ʤom-; Yeresiam hàŋkú; Moor naʔu; Waropen nuŋu.

10 The majority pattern is to use the noun ‘person’ in combination with a multiplicand (i.e., ‘one person’ = ‘twenty’, ‘two persons’ = ‘forty’ and so forth). Only Dusner uses ‘person’ on its own without the numeral ‘one’ to mean ‘twenty’. The Yeresiam construction is also unique for its inclusion of kúukarà ‘complete’. Yeresiam and Moor have ‘twenty’ as their highest base. The remainder of the Cenderawasih languages appear to have a distinct base for ‘hundred’, but not for ‘thousand’. Only Yaur and Yeretuar are known to have a separate base for ‘thousand’: Yaur hiaranho kotem ‘thousand’, Yeretuar hiar rebe ‘thousand’. These higher bases appear to be borrowings from Biak utin ‘hundred’ and syáran ‘thousand’ (Anceaux 1961: 75-76). The numerals of one Cenderawasih language, Roon, are worth particular attention for the distinct arrangement of its numeral system and the series of changes that can be tracked in the system from the earliest sources. Consider the Roon numerals from three different sources that are presented in Table 10.

TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE.

In the Roon materials given in the earliest source (Fabritius 1855), Roon has complex numerals for ‘six’ to ‘ten’ formed using etymological ‘six’ as if it were an augend with the numeral value ‘five’. That is, Roon expresses ‘seven’ to ‘ten’ through arithmetically incorrect formulations, as set out in (5). This system is also represented in one of the two lists given in Galis (1955) and in Starrenburg (1915). Arithmetically incorrect formulations are marked with * in the “Analysis” columns of the table.

Composition of Roon additive numerals below ‘ten’ (5) a. onemenuru ‘7’ < onim ‘6’ e ‘plus’ nuru ‘2’ b. onemeŋokor ‘8’ < onim ‘6’ e ‘plus’ ŋokor ‘3’ c. onenfak ‘9’ < onim ‘6’ fiak ~ fak ‘4’ d. onemerim ‘10’ < onim ‘6’ e ‘plus’ rim ‘5’

In each case, we see that these Roon numerals involve the addends that we would expect to find if the augend was ‘five’ and not ‘six’. Roon appears to have been remodeled an earlier numeral system on an additive base-5 pattern, such as that given in Galis’ (1955) second list, but then only imperfectly with the etymologically “wrong” numeral, namely ‘six’, being taken as the augend. We see in Table 13 that by the mid-20th century Roon had replaced its complex numerals with simplex numerals for ‘six’ to ‘ten’, likely borrowed from Biak.10 From the most recent work, we can observe another interesting reanalysis of the values of numeral lexemes in Roon. Roon originally had a vigesimal base; in the 19th and 20th century sources, we find a simplex form for ‘twenty’ (variously given as arzus, arsis and

10 Biak is well-known to have been a lingua franca widely used across Cenderawasih until the establishment of the Indonesian education system and the widespread acquisition of Malay in the region of Papua. Specifically, Biak was the language of instruction in Roon schools in the beginning of the 20th century (Starrenburg 1915).

11 ares) distinct from the numeral for ‘ten’.11 However, in the most recent work on Roon by David Gil, we see ares is no longer a base meaning ‘twenty’ but has been reanalysed as a decimal base used in the formation of decades from ‘twenty’ above. This reanalysis of the numerical value of ares is plainly evident in the fact that, whereas in the past ares either stood on its own or was combined with ‘one’ to denote ‘twenty’, today it is used together with numeral suru ‘two’ to denote ‘twenty’ and kior ‘three’ to denote ‘thirty’, as we would expect of a decimal and not a vigesimal base.

3.7. Yapen and nearby islands On Yapen, we find a similar range of bases as those combined together in the numeral systems found in Cenderawasih Bay. Consider the data given Tables 11 and 12 from languages from western and eastern Yapen respectively.

TABLE 11 & 12 ABOUT HERE

Yapen languages all have have a decimal base reflecting *sura(t) ‘ten’ and a vigesimal base reflecting *pia ‘twenty’. The expression of numerals ‘six’ and ‘nine’ in the Yapen languages, however, shows much more variation. We find three variants:

(i) simplex numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’ reflecting the inherited PMP forms (Wooi, Marau and Wabo); (ii) canonical quinary systems in which the numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’ are all formed by means of an additive procedure to a base-five pattern (Busami, Serui Laut, and Kurudu); (iii) partial quinary systems in which only the numerals for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ are formed by means of an additive procedure to a base-five pattern (Ansus, Papuma and Ambai).

There is notable variation in the ordering of augend and addend in languages with canonical quinary systems of (ii). That is, Busami and Serui-Laut have quinary numerals in which the addend precedes the base (i.e., 1 5, 2 5, 3 5, 4 5). This is the reverse of the pattern attested in the Yapen languages with partial quinary systems and the pattern generally attested in the area we discuss, which has the base preceding the addend (i.e., 5 1, 5 2, etc).

3.8. Mamberamo There is some uncertainty regarding the (past and present) situation of Austronesian languages of the mouth of the Mamberamo. We therefore choose to cite all relevant data. An isogloss -ti/to versus -si/so divides the language we may call Warembori [wsa] from what we may call Yoke [yki] (Donohue 1999:52-55; Table 13). A few vocabularies from the now vanished village Pauwi of the early 20th century (but not that of the van Braam

11 Unlike other Cenderawasih languages, this base is not related to the noun ‘person’, which is Roon noŋgaku.

12 Morris-expedition a few decades earlier) are of the of the -si/so group and diverge appreciably from Yoke data collected in the last few decades (as seen in, e.g., the numeral ‘two’). We therefore count Pauwi as a separate language here (Table 14), though it may be that these Pauwi wordlists represent a mixed village (see Rouffaer 1909 for the chequered history of the village). The forms attested for ‘one’ to ‘ten’ and ‘twenty’, where available, are shown in Table 13 and 14. Although there are missing data points and occasional mysterious forms, all systems show a base-5 system at least beyond six.

TABLE 13 AND 14 ABOUT HERE

3.9. Bomberai peninsula The Bomberai peninsula is home to a number of different low-level subgroups whose relationships with one another have yet to be worked out (van den Berg 2009). Their numerals and numeral systems, however, are widely variant and do not suggest any close relation. The Onin group consists of three very closely related languages Onin12, Sekar and Uruangnirin, whose numerals one to ten are shown in Table 15. The same complex numerals are found for ‘seven’ to ‘nine’ in the three languages. The numerals ‘seven’ and ‘eight’ are formed by means of additive compound; ‘seven’ and ‘eight’ are composed of an apparent additive operator tara(ŋ) ‘plus, add’ followed by the numerals ‘one’ and ‘two’ respectively. Whilst no form for ‘six’ is explicit in the numerals, we must assume that the augend for these numerals is ‘six’. The numeral ‘nine’ is an innovative subtractive numeral, compound of sa ‘one’ followed by puti ‘ten’, differentiating it from the numeral ‘ten’.

TABLE 15 ABOUT HERE

The numerals ‘one’ to ‘ten’ in the Arguni-Bedoanas-Erokwanas dialect chain are given in Table 16. Numerals ‘seven’ and ‘nine’ show innovated forms, but etymologies are not self-evident. Arguni ‘eight’ could be composed of 4x2 but getting but- from fat- would require several idiosyncratic changes. The remaining ‘seven’ to ‘nine’ suggest a formative na- but the other parts do not match two-three-four pattern as in typical base-5 systems.

TABLE 16 ABOUT HERE

The numerals of the Irarutu-Kuri dialect chain are given in Table 17. We see that all numerals from ‘four’ up haves been replaced, consistent with the possibility that speakers at some point ancestral to Irarutu-Kuri had a restricted (‘one’ to ‘three’ only) numeral system.

12 A potentially earlier “Honin” vocabulary of Marsden (1834) consists of 10 numerals and 2 other lexical items. The numerals are certainly Austronesian, but not recognisable as any of the Austronesian languages on the Onin peninsula, especially not Onin, as they fail to show, for instance, the n > r sound change. However, we do note that the two other lexical items (‘fish’ and ‘fire’) show forms which are specific to the Onin group (and Arguni-Bedoanas-Erokwanas).

13 TABLE 17 ABOUT HERE

Irarutu and Kuri have a base 5-20 system, with no higher decimal base (i.e., 100) being attested in any of the available sources. The base-20 is derived from the lexeme ‘person’ (Irarutu matu, Kuri tmatu), and the base-5 from the lexeme fra ‘hand/arm’ (Smits & Voorhoeve 1992:7). They have canonical base-5 systems, that is, with ‘ten’ formed as 5x2. In (6), we set out three morphemes that can be detected in the compound for ‘ten’, namely, the lexeme ‘hand/arm’, a multiplicative operator and a reduction of the numeral ‘two’.

Formation of ‘ten’ in north Bomberai languages (6) Irarutu: fradaru < fra ‘hand/arm’ da ‘multiply’ ru ‘two’ Kuri: fra dru

There are noticeable differences in the composition of Irarutu and Kuri numerals ‘five’ to ‘nine’. Kuri numerals ‘five’ to ‘nine’ are formed with fra plus dĕβi ~ defi (fre), a morpheme of unknown meaning. Only Irarutu ‘five’ is formed in the same way, with fra plus –da vida, also of unknown meaning.13 In Irarutu, the formation of numerals ‘six’ and ‘nine’ fra is not present. Instead, these numerals are composed of an additive operator ter(e) followed by the addend (in the form of a derivative/reduction of ‘1’ to ‘five’). The Irarutu form ter(e) appears to be related to Kuri tri, the multiplicative operator used in the formation of decades ‘twenty’ and up. We suggest that the internally more consistent Kuri pattern for forming ‘five’ to ‘nine’ was probably once also found in Irarutu, but that the system was reorganised due to the reanalysis of ter(e) as an additive operator. The hypothesised steps of the system change in Irarutu are illustrated for the numeral ‘eight’ in (7).

Historical reformation of Irarutu ‘eight’ (7) Stage I: *frada vida toru Stage II: *fra tere toru Stage III: tereturu

Finally, we come to Kowiai. We see from the numerals given in Table 18 that the language has a clear base-5 system for ‘six’ to ‘nine’. Numerals for ‘ten’ and up are formed on a decimal pattern, but are not obviously related to the PAN *sa-puluq ‘ten’.

TABLE 18 ABOUT HERE

3.10. WMP area Innovative numerals are found in a small number of subgroups in WMP area. We identify four distinct innovations: (i) Malayo-Chamic subtractive numerals ‘eight’ and ‘nine’; (ii) South Sulawesi subtractive numerals ‘eight’ and ‘nine’; (iii) Makasarese additive ‘seven’, and; (iv) Ilongot quinary numerals for ‘six’ to ‘nine’.

13 We presume that –da vida and dĕβi ~ defi are cognates even though the match is imperfect.

14 Languages of the Malayo-Chamic subgroup have innovative subtractive numerals for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ (Blust 1981: 161-162). Table 19 presents an overview of the modern Malayic numerals with the innovative numerals. The two innovative forms are reconstructed to Proto-Malayic as compounds using different verbs of “taking” that subsequently underwent contraction: ‘eight’ < *dua(ʔ) ‘two’ + *alap-an ‘take’, literally, ‘two taken away (from ten)’, and; ‘nine’ < *ǝse(ʔ) ‘one’ + ambil-an ‘take’, literally, ‘one taken away (from ten)’ (Mills 1975: 229; Adelaar 1985: 137-138).14 Two languages in particular stand out. The first is Minangkabau salapan ‘eight’ which apparently reflects a compound *sa- ‘one’ + alap-an ‘take’ for ‘nine’ and not ‘eight’. Explaining this, Blust (1981: 467 fn. 5) suggests that Proto-Malayic had *sǝmbilan and *salapan as synonyms for ‘nine’, originally complex numerals based on the two different ‘take’ verbs. In Minangkabau, he proposes, salapan shifted to mean ‘eight’ after the compound forms became intransparent to speakers. The dual reconstruction of *sǝmbilan and *salapan is supported by Seraway Middle-Malay which retains reflexes of both. Sundanese and Makassarese have salapan and salapaŋ for ‘nine’ respectively. These numerals (along with several others in each language) were presumably borrowed from Malay at a time when the doublet for ‘nine’ was still present.15

TABLE 19 ABOUT HERE

Languages of the South Sulawesi subgroup all reflect innovative subtractive numerals for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ respectively. A selection of the numerals in six languages in the subgroup is provided in Table 20.

TABLE 20 ABOUT HERE

The South Sulawesi proto-forms from which the innovative subtractive numerals are thought to be descended are *karua(a) ‘eight’ and *kasera(a) ‘nine’. Both of the proto- numerals follow the pattern *ka- + 'one / two' (+ *-a).16 The reconstruction of *kasera(a) ‘nine’ is somewhat problematic, because some languages of the subgroup do not reflect *sera ‘one’ in their subtractive compound. Sirk (1989:62) explains the discrepancies in the form of numeral ‘one’ in the innovative subtractive numerals:

‘..., it is likely that at the PSS stage there existed *kasera(a) 'nine' besides *sera ‘one’, but somewhat later, when *sera got lost and the composition of the reflex of *kasera(a) became

14 One Malayic language, Banjarese, does not reflect these, having replaced reflexes of the proto-Malayic ‘eight’ and ‘nine’, with Javanese (Adelaar 1985: 138). 15 Under the wide ranging influence of Malay, one or more of these numerals have been borrowed into several other Austronesian groups, for instance, the Tamanic (and Makasarese languages to name just a few of many. However, since the borrowing occurred presumably after the complex origins of the numerals had been subtracted, we don’t count them here as innovations proper. 16 David Mead (pers. comm.) notes that, “given that the Seko forms end in a long vowel, it is probable that at the level of their common ancestor you would have to speak of a confix *ka- ... -aq, since the historical source of long vowels in Seko is always -Vq. However, outside_ of Seko, *ka- ... -a would indeed be correct.”

15 unclear to speakers, it was discarded in some dialects/languages in favour of a new derivative from ‘one’: kamesaʔa, kamesa, kaassa, or the like. Such derivatives may have been formed by analogy on the model of the word for 'eight', which had remained analysable in most languages/dialects (true, the Seko word for 'eight' [karo'a] may cast doubt on such an explanation.) The other possibility, which apparently conforms better to Seko data, is that *kasera(a) and *kamesa(a) already existed side by side in different dialects at the PSS stage.’

Outside of Bugis, the Makassar languages, Campalagian and Mamuju, the forms mesa, mesaʔ, meesa and meesaʔ are the usual responses for ‘one’. The discrepancies might also be explained as the result of the diffusion of subtractive pattern throughout the subgroup (Charles E. Grimes pers. comm.). Ideally, in that case, we would see proximate languages outside the South Sulawesi subgroup also with the subtractive numerals, however, we do not.17 One language of the subgroup, Makassarese, is exceptional in not reflecting the innovative subtractive numerals. Makassar ‘seven’ and ‘nine’ are borrowings from Malay. The formation of ‘eight’ is, however, notable, being an innovative additive numeral composed of sa- ‘one’ + agaŋ ‘with, and’ + tuju ‘seven’ (Mills 1975: 230), roughly translatable as ‘the one with seven’. Finally, we have been able to identify only one language of the Phillipines, Ilongot, with innovations of the kind we are interested in here. We see in Table 21 that Ilongot has developed a quinary base used for the formation of 6-9.

TABLE 21 ABOUT HERE

3.11. Summary Table 22 summarises the innovations in numeral bases and complex numerals in non-OC MP languages that we have discussed in the preceding sections. There are two main points to take away from our treatment of complex numeral innovations.

TABLE 22 ABOUT HERE

Firstly, we identify far more innovations than had been previously recognised as present in non-Oc MP languages. Blust (2008b: 452) writes:

“A few other AN languages outside Melanesia use addition, multiplication, or subtraction to form some numerals, but these are mixed imperfect decimal systems, as with the immediate common ancestor of Keo, Ngadha, Lio, and Ende in Flores (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5+1, 5+2, 2x4, 10-1, 10), and Kédang, to the east of Timor18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

17 The Tamanic languages of West Kalimantan subgroup with the South Sulawesi languages, but provide no solution to the question of the reconstructability of the subtractive numerals, since they have borrowed the Malay numerals ‘seven’ to ‘nine’.

18 This error is original. Lembata and Flores are not east of Timor but to its north-west.

16 7, 8, 5+4, 10). This gives two innovative quinary counting systems for all AN languages outside Melanesia19, ...”

Our study adds at least ten distinct complex numeral innovations to this list with witnesses present in scores of languages outside Melanesia: (i) three distinct innovations of quinary systems in the Austronesian languages in Timor; (ii) two innovations in Western Sumba languages with an innovative multiplicative numeral in three languages and an innovative subtractive numeral also in two of these; (iii) the innovation of additive seven and multiplicative eight in Aru languages; (iv) at least two innovations in central- western Maluku, with Taliabo with subtractive nine and Buru-Sula languages with subtractive eight and nine; (v) innovative subtractive numerals for eight and nine in two separate groups, proto-Malayo-Chamic and proto-South Sulawesi, and; (vi) Makassar with an innovative additive numeral for eight. Secondly, there is a clear geographical skewing to the innovations. In the whole area west and north of Sulawesi (excluding Taiwan) we only identify two complex numeral innovations (See Map 1). By contrast, when starting in Sulawesi and moving east we find a plethora of innovations, the density of which grows the closer we come to the New Guinea mainland. We count at least ten independent innovations alone in the islands to the west of New Guinea. On New Guinea and the islands of the Yapen-Cerderawasih Bay directly to its north we count at least seven different counting systems. Furthermore, the difference in forms as well as the historical and geographical separation shows that the Kowiai, Arguni-group, Irarutu-Kuri and Yapen-Cenderawasih Bay innovations in 6-9 all reflect different historical events. Moreover, while the forms suggest that Ansus-Ambai as well as Serui-Busami reflect one and the same historical event, all the others in the Yapen-Cenderawasih Bay area, as shown by the forms and by the fact that their interspersed relatives retain the old monomorphemic 6-9 roots, represent distinct historical events. In short, the Austronesian languages of New Guinea thus represent a multitude of historically different innovations of composite forms in the range 6-9.

19 There is no consensus on the borders of Melanesia in the literature. From the context of Blust’s (2008) discussion, however, we take him to mean that Melanesia includes New Guinea and its immediate satellite islands, the Bismarck Archipelago and the Solomon Islands, with Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands included only in “Remote Melanesia”. An anonymous reviewer agreed that this was the correct interpretaion of Blust’s Melanesia.

Map 1: All identified base & complex numeral innovations 18 Note: The marked languages encircled by the dashed line all reflect the numeral innovations made in Proto-Malayic, and not separate independent innovations of complex numerals. 4. MOTIVATIONS FOR INNOVATIONS In this section, we consider a range of possible motivations for the high number of numeral innovations we observe in the non-Oc MP languages. We identify three different factors that appear to be driving the innovations: (i) Papuan contact/substrate influence; (ii) conventionalised counting practices, and; (iii) number taboos. We discuss innovations, first, of non-decimal numeral bases (section 4.1) and, second, of individual complex numerals (section 4.2).

4.1. Innovative bases Innovative bases in Austronesian languages occur almost exclusively in areas where we today find Papuan languages with similar systems. We suggest here that the proliferation of new bases in Austronesian languages situated near Papuan languages is unlikely to be coincidence, but is most probably the result of calquing of Papuan numeral systems. We turn first of all to the Papuan languages on the Bird’s Head and Bird’s Neck of the New Guinea mainland and the proximate islands of Cenderawasih Bay. These languages present a range of numeral systems, including restricted systems and base 2 systems, neither of which are attested in the Austronesian languages of the region. Crucially, however, there are numerous Papuan languages of unrelated families that possess base-5 and base-20 systems. In Table 23 we present an overview of those Papuan languages which are in direct contact with Austronesian languages with innovative base-5 and base-20 numeral systems. By “direct contact” we mean where two languages are neighbouring each other on land. The reader will observe that, of the 19 Papuan languages we identify to be in contact with the innovating Austronesian languages, 13 have base-5 and 7 of these have base-20 also.

TABLE 23 ABOUT HERE

Another similarity between the Papuan and Austronesian numeral bases in this area is that the numerals ‘twenty’ and ‘five’ originate in nouns for ‘person’ and/or ‘hand/arm’ respectively. There is a good physical motivation for these polysemies and accordingly they are cross- linguistically very common (Pott 1847). Nevertheless, we suggest that this resemblance is also indicative of calquing from Papuan into Austronesian languages. A purely genetic explanation for the presence of these new bases in the Austronesian languages of the area is not well supported. The diversity of numeral systems and their forms that we saw in section 3 is rather indicative of erratic diffusion from different Papuan sources. This scenario is consistent with the fact that there are Austronesian languages in the area that did not innovate, as well as Papuan languages in the area with numeral systems that are not found in nearby Austronesian languages.

19 Whilst for the sake of simplicity, we limited ourselves above to cases of direct contact over land, contact can undoubtedly take place across water. A case in point is that of Tokodede and Mambae spoken on the north-central coast of Timor. These languages are just a short sea-crossing from Alor, where we find mixed quinary-decimal systems (Schapper & Klamer forthcoming). There is good linguistic and historical evidence that there was contact between these north-coast Timor groups and the Alor groups (Wellfelt & Schapper 2013). It is notable that the close inland relative of Tokodede and Mambae, Kemak, has no base-5 numerals. All this goes to suggest that the development of the base-five numerals in the Austronesian languages on Timor was contact-induced, and we submit that it was most likely the result of contact with speakers of languages on the south and east coast of Alor. The case of the origin of base-5 in Naueti, spoken on the south-eastern coast of Timor, is more problematic. Naueti is in contact with the three Papuan languages of eastern Timor, Fataluku, Makasae and Makalero, but these do not have any base-5 numerals. Instead they have adopted Austronesian forms for higher digits. However, historical work suggests that base-5 numerals for ‘seven’ to ‘nine’ were probably present in the proto-language from which the modern Papuan languages in Timor descend (Schapper & Klamer forthcoming). We may hypothesise that Naueti acquired its base-5 from a predecessor of these Papuan languages, either through contact or substrate, before the adoption of Austronesian numerals. If we accept this explanation of the origin of Naueti’s base-5, we are left with just one instance of an innovated base in MP languages (base-5 in Ilongot) which isn’t attributable to a Papuan source. We do not dispute the possibility of bases being independently innovated. The Ilongot case has parallels elsewhere, such as the innovative base-5 in Khmer in the Mon- Khmer family to name just one (Jacob 1965). Nevertheless, it is clear that the inherited decimal system of the Malayo-Polynesian languages is not subject to nearly the same frequency of sporadic losses as in the regions of Papuan contact.

4.2. Innovative individual complex numerals Innovative complex numerals in Austronesian languages have a much more scattered distribution than the innovative non-decimal bases discussed above. They are, however, for the most part concentrated in eastern Indonesia. A range of explanations can be suggested for the different constellations of complex numerals observed across the eastern Indonesian area. The cluster of innovations in south-east Indonesia on Sumba (section 3.1), Flores and Lembata (section 3.2) appears to be part of an areal pattern that encompasses at least part of the Papuan languages of Alor and Pantar (AP). Table 24 presents an overview of the complex numeral patterns found in the AP languages.

20 TABLE 24 ABOUT HERE

Alongside the inherited additive ‘five’ numerals, western AP languages have innovated subtractive numerals for ‘seven’ through ‘nine’, and in one language, Kui, a multiplicative 2x4 numeral for ‘eight’ has developed. The similarities of complex numeral innovations in the Papuan and AN languages in this relatively compact region are suggestive of contact induced change, though the exact directionality of change for all innovativions and the nature of the contact need fuller investigation. A simple case in point can, however, be made of Kedang ‘nine’. This numeral, composed of 5+4 is most likely to have been formed on the basis of the quinary patterns used for ‘six’ to ‘nine’ in the AP languages on northern Pantar, east of Lembata. This is supported by the fact that the Lamaholot dialects with which Kedang is in contact to the south and west, do not have quinary numerals and so they cannot be the source of the Kedang construction. The Kedang group are culturally very different from the Lamaholot groups, instead showing similarities with the groups of Alor and Pantar (Barnes 1982: 15). The use of ‘five’ as an augend in Flores languages is more obscure, but possibly reflects a Papuan substrate in Flores languages (see, e.g., Capell 1976 for an early suggestion of Papuan influence in Flores). The replacement of etymological ‘eight’ with a multiplicative [2x4] numeral can be attributed to socio-cultural motivations at work in south- eastern Indonesia, at least in the first instance. In the area, the numeral ‘eight’ is often subject to taboo, being often associated with death (this is described, for example, for Nage in Forth 1993), and has a relation with the numeral ‘four’, which associates with rituals relating to various transitions in the life cycle, involving birth and death (Barnes 1974: 168, 190, 193).20 The historical replacement of mono-morphemic ‘eight’ with a complex numeral may be seen as an expression of the cultural association between these numerals ‘two’ and four’ as well as serving to circumvent the use of the taboo numeral ‘eight’. At the same time, we observe a range of counting practices in south- eastern Indonesia involving sets of four that may have played a role in the introduction of the multiplicative [2x4] numeral. Notably, Kéo in central Flores has a special base-four counting system used in enumerating fruit, coconuts, betel nut and small fish (Table 25, Baird 2002: 234). The base- four numerals contain the classifier-like set noun diwu ‘set of four’.

TABLE 25 ABOUT HERE

On Sumba, we also have a 19th Century report of base-four counting in Kambera (De Roo van Alderwerelt 1891:242). In counting fruits, small objects such as earrings, and small animals, such as piglets and fish), the

20 See also Forth (1981: 210 v.v.) for similar uses of ‘four’, ‘eight’ and ‘sixteen’ in Rindi, Sumba.

21 lexeme lutu ‘set of four’ was used (Onvlee 1984: 250), such that we find formations such as sou lutu ‘1 set of 4’ for ‘four’ and dua lutu ‘2 sets of 4’ for ‘eight. We suggest that it is likely to have been the conventionalisation of just such counting practices that led to the replacement of monomorphemic ‘eight’ with 2x4. Finally, there is a cluster of AN languages south of the Bird’s Head of New Guinea and on the Aru Islands using an augend ‘six’ in forming ‘seven’ and in some cases also ‘eight’. The use of ‘six’ as an augend is very rare cross-linguistically, and outside of the sporadic cases in Formosan languages, we find precious little sign of it (Kluge 1941). It is interesting to note that further east on Kolopom island in the south-west corner of New Guinea there is a hot-spot for senary numeral systems (Donohue 2008b, Evans 2009, Hammarström 2009). It is tempting to posit a connection between the occurrences of an augend ‘six’ in the AN languages in this area and these senary systems in Papuan languages. Certainly, historical records support a connection: Kolff (1828), the first recorded European to set foot on Kolopom Island, states that he was able to communicate with the natives of that place via interpreters from Aru due to the regular trade between the two places. However, so little is known about the history of the region that without further evidence a link between the AN and Papuan numerals here remains a mere tantalising possibility.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS Numerals in Malayo-Polynesian languages outside of the Oceanic subgroup show innovations of non-decimal bases and complex numeral formations involving additive, subtractive and to a lesser extent multiplicative procedures in the range 6-9. In this paper, we have presented the results of a survey of numerals in 470 languages. The diversity of innovative numeral systems and their associated forms we observe indicates that there were perhaps two dozen separate innovation events in non-Oc MP numerals, notably more than previously recognised. We further observed that there is a significant geographical skewing of these innovations to the “CEMP area” encompassing eastern Indonesia and East Timor. The languages of this region are well-known to have been substantially altered by Papuan influence, either by contact or substrate, including the appearance of traits such as split-intransitivity (Donohue 2004), neuter gender (Schapper 2010), the frequent use of verb serialisation and a host of other word order changes (Donohue 2008a). The numeral innovations discussed here, in particular the emergence of non- decimal bases, appear to be, for the most part, yet another reflex of Papuan influence. As the citations made at the beginning of the paper make clear, the fact of Papuan influence has long been observed for numeral innovations in Austronesian languages belonging to the Oceanic subgroup, but has remained largely unexplored –except in the broadest of terms– in the Austronesian languages to the west of New Guinea.

22 Sources Austronesian languages Lamboya Leif Asplund p.c. 2011 Tandia Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146- 160; Fabritius 1855 Kodi Leif Asplund p.c. 2011 Dusner Dalrymple & Mofu 2012 Wejewa Leif Asplund p.c. 2011 Yeretuar David Kamholz p.c. 2012 Rongga Arka et.al. 2007 Yaur David Kamholz p.c. 2012 Ngadha Arndt 1961 Yeresiam David Kamholz p.c. 2012 Kéo Baird 2002 Moor David Kamholz p.c. 2012 Nage Gregory Forth p.c. 2011 Waropen Anceaux 1961 Ende Aoki & Nakagawa 1993 Roon David Gil pers. comm, 2012, Anceaux 1961, Fabritius (1855) Lio Sawardo et al. 1987, Arndt 1933 Wooi Freya Morigerowsky p.c. 2012 Kédang Samely 1991 Marau Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Tokodede (Licissa) Schapper fieldnotes 2007 Ansus Price & Donohue 2009; Fabritius 1855 Tokodede (Mauboke) Klamer fieldnotes 2002 Papuma Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Mambae Schapper fieldnotes 2007, Klamer Busami Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 fieldnotes 2002 Naueti Saunders 2003 Serui Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Buru Grimes 1991 Ambai Silzer 1983 Hukumina Stokhof 1982: 73 Wabo Anceaux 1961 Lisela Wallace 1869: 623-624 Kurudu Le Roux no date, J Th Stroeve ca 1912-1913 Sula Collins 1981, Wallace 1869 Warembori Le Roux no date: Donohue 1999, Jung 1988, Jones 1987 Mangole Stokhof & Saleh-Bronkhorst 1980: Onin Müller 1857:117 57-66 Taliabo Fortgens 1921:17 Sekar Strauch 1876:408 Kola Richard Olson p.c. 2010 Uruangnirin Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Ujir Schapper fieldnotes 2010 Arguni de Clercq 1893:464; 20 and 40 from Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Manombai Makmur Hutasoit p.c. 2010 Goras-Erokwanas Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 Dobel Jock Hughes p.c. 2010 Fior-Bedoanas de Clercq 1889:1677; Smits and Voorhoeve 1998:146-160 West Tarangan Rick Nivens p.c. 2010 Irarutu Cowan 1953:30 20 and 40 from Galis 1960:139 Barukay Patricia Spyer p.c. 2012 Kuri Kijne no date Batuley Jakub Pszczolka p.c. 2010 Kowiai Earl 1853:foldout; Müller 1857:117 Wandamen-Windesi Henning et al. 1991: 85

Papuan languages Sougb van der Sande 1907:320 Semimi Anceaux 1956, von Miklucho- Maclay 1876 Moskona Gravelle 2010:165-167 Miere Starrenburg 1915 Tanahmerah Anceaux 1956, Galis 1960 Ekari Le Roux 1950 Bauzi Briley 1977 Tarunggare Le Roux no date Bahaam Anceaux 1956 Demisa SIL Wapoga Survey data Mor Hammarström field notes 2012 Barapasi Le Roux no date Iha Robidé van der Aa 1879 Burate Clouse 1992 Karas Robidé van der Aa 1879 Yawa de Clercq 1893:636, 881 Buruwai-Kamberau Anceaux 1956 Airoran Le Roux no date Mairasi Galis 1955

References Adelaar, Alexander. 1985. Proto-Malayic. The reconstruction of its phonology and parts of its lexicon and morphology. PhD thesis, Leiden University. Adelaar, Alexander K. (1994) The classification of the Tamanic languages. In Tom Dutton & Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Language contact and change in the Austronesian world (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 77), 1-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Adelaar, Alexander. 2005. The Austronesian languages of South East Asia and Madagascar: a historical perspective. In Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar (Routledge Language Family Series), 1-41. London & New York: Routledge. Anceaux, Johannes Cornelis. 1956. Voorlopig kort overzicht van de taal- situatie in de Onderafdeling Fakfak en de aangrenzende gebieden van Kaimana en Babo. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën: Kantoor Bevolkingszaken Nieuw-Guinea te Hollandia: Rapportenarchief, 1950-1962, nummer toegang 2.10.25, inventarisnummer 792. Anceaux, Johannes Cornelis. 1961. The linguistic situation in the islands of Yapen, Kurudu, Nau and Miosnum, New Guinea. (Verhandelingen van het Koninglijk instituut voor taal-, land- en volkenkunde 35). ’S- Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff. Anonymous (Max Moszkowski). 1913. Wörterverzeichnisse von Papua- Sprachen aus holländisch-Neuguinea. Anthropos VIII. 254–259. Aoki, Eriko & Satoshi Nakagawa. 1993. Endenese-English dictionary. Unpublished manuscript. Arka, I Wayan, Fransiscus Seda, Antonius Gelang, Yohanes Nani & Ivan Ture. 2007. A Rongga-English dictionary with an English-Rongga finderlist. http://chl.anu.edu.au/linguistics/projects/iwa/Web- Pages/RonggaDictionary2007.pdf (6 December, 2011). I Wayan Arka. (2009) Maintaining Vera in Rongga: Struggles over Culture, Tradition, and Language in Modern Manggarai, Flores, Indonesia. In Margaret Florey (ed.), Endangered Languages of Austronesia, 90-109. Oxford University Press. Arnaud, Véronique & Henri Campagnolo. 1998. Lexique Thématique Plurilingue de Trente-Six Langues et Dialectes d'Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire (Laboratoire Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Austronesien). Paris: L'Harmattan. 2 vols. Arndt, Paul. 1933. Li’onesisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Ende-Flores: Arnoldus-Druckerei. Arndt, Paul. 1961. Wörterbuch der Ngadhasprache (Studia Instituti Anthropos 15). Posieux, Fribourg: Anthropos-Institut.

24 Baird, Louise. 2002. A grammar of Kéo: An Austronesian language of East Nusantara. PhD thesis, Australian National University. Barnes, Robert. 1982. Number and number use in Kédang, Indonesia. Man 17.1: 1–22. Barnes, Robert. 1974. Kédang: A Study of the Collective Thought of an Eastern Indonesian People. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Berg, René van den. 2009. Possession in South Halmahera West New Guinea: typology and reconstruction. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 327- 357. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Blust, Robert. 1981. The reconstruction of proto-Malayo-Javanic: an appreciation. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 137.4: 456-469. Blust, Robert. 1993. Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian. Oceanic Linguistics 32.2. 241–294. Blust, Robert. 2008a. Is there a Bima-Sumba Subgroup? Oceanic Linguistics 47.1: 45-113. Blust, Robert. 2008b. Remote Melanesia: One History or Two? An Addendum to Donohue and Denham. Oceanic Linguistics 47.2: 445- 459. Blust, Robert. 2009a. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Blust, Robert. 2009b. The position of the languages of eastern Indonesia: A Reply to Donohue and Grimes. Oceanic Linguistics 48:36–77. Briley, Joyce. 1977. Some Counting Systems of Irian Jaya. Irian 6.3. 28- 32. Capell, Arthur. 1976. Austronesian and Papuan ‘mixed’ languages: general remarks. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study, Vol. 2: Austronesian languages, 527- 579. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C40. Clouse, Duane. 1992. Burate of Totoberi. SIL Papua Wordlist, Ms. Collins, James T. 1981. Preliminary notes on Proto-West Central Maluku: Buru, Sula, Taliabo and Ambelau. In Historical Linguistics in Indonesia, part 1, edited by R. A. Blust. NUSA 10:31-45. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara NUSA. Collins, James T. 1983. The historical relationships of the languages of Central Maluku, Indonesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Collins, James T. (1989) Notes on the Language of Taliabo. Oceanic Linguistics XXVIII(1). 75-95. Cowan, H. K. J. 1953. Voorlopige Resultaten van een Ambtelijk Taalonderzoek in Nieuw-Guinea. ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Dalrymple, Mary & Suriel Mofu. 2012. Dusner. (Languages of the World/Materials 487). München: Lincom.

25 De Clercq, F. S. A. 1889. Langs de zuidkust der MacCluer-golf. De Indische Gids 11. 1666–1684. De Clercq, F. S. A. 1893. De West- en Noordkust van Nederlands Nieuw- Guinea. Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Aardrijkskundig Genootschap: 2e serie X. 151–219, 438–465, 587–649, 841–884, 981–1021. De Roo van Alderwerelt, J. 1891. Soembaneesch-Hollandsche Woordenlijst met een schets eener grammatika. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 34: 234-282. Donohue, Mark. 1999. Warembori (Languages of the World/Materials 341). München: Lincom. Donohue, Mark. 2004. Typology and linguistic areas. Oceanic Linguistics 43:221-239. Donohue, Mark. 2008a. Word Order in Austronesian from North to South and West to East. Linguistic Typology 11: 349-391. Donohue, Mark. 2008b. Complexities with restricted numeral systems. Linguistic Typology 12. 423-429. Donohue, Mark, & Charles E. Grimes. 2008. Yet more on the position of the languages of eastern Indonesia and East Timor. Oceanic Linguistics 47:114–58. Dunn, Michael, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink and Angela Terrill. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84.4:710-759. Evans, Nicholas. (2009) Two pus one makes thirteen: Senary numerals in the Morehead-Maro region. Linguistic Typology 13(2). 321-335. Earl, George Windsor. 1853. The Native Races of the Indian Archipelago: The Papuans (The Ethnographical Library I). London: Hippolyte Bailliere. Fabritius, G. J. 1855. Anteekeningen omtrent Nieuw-Guinea. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde IV. 209–215. Flassy, Don Augusthinus Lamaech. 2002. Toror: A Name Beyond Language and Culture Fusion. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Fortgens, J. 1921. Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Sobojo (Einland Taliabo, Soela-Groep). ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Forth, Gregory. 1981. Rindi: An ethnographic study of a traditional domain in Eastern Sumba. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Forth, Gregory. 1993. Ritual and ideology in Nage mortuary culture. In Tong Chee Kiong & A. Schiller (eds.) Social constructions of death in Southeast Asia. Special issue of Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 21(2). 37-61. Galis, Klaas Wilhelm. 1955. Talen en dialecten van Nederlands Nieuw- Guinea. Tijdschrift Nieuw-Guinea 16. 109–118, 134–145, 161–178. Galis, Klaas Wilhelm. 1960. Telsystemen in Nederlands-Nieuw-Guinea. Nieuw Guinea Studien 4(2). 131–150.

26 Galis, K. W. 1960. Telsystemen in Nederlands-Nieuw-Guinea. Nieuw Guinea Studiën 4:131-149. Den Haag: Haagsche drukkerij en uitgeversmij. Gravelle, Gloria. 2010. A Grammar of Moskona: An East Bird’s Head Language of West Papua, Indonesia. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Generalizations about numeral systems. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language Vol. 3, 250-295. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Grimes, Charles E. 1991. The Buru language of Eastern Indonesia. PhD thesis, The Australian National University. Grimes, Charles E. 2000. Defining speech communities on Buru Island: A look at both linguistic and non-linguistics factors. In Charles E. Grimes (ed.), Spices from the east: papers in languages of eastern Indonesia (Pacific Linguistics 503), 73-103. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Grimes, Charles E. 2009. Digging for the Roots of Language Death in Eastern Indonesia: The Cases of Kayeli and Hukumina. In Margaret Florey (ed.), Endangered Languages of Austronesia, 73-89. Oxford University Press. Grimes, Charles E. & Barbara D. Grimes. 1984. Languages of the North Moluccas. In E. K. M. Masinambow (ed.), Maluku dan Irian Jaya (Buletin LEKNAS: Terbitan Khusus III:1), 35-63. Jakarta: LEKNAS-LIPI. Grimes, Charles E. & Barbara D. Grimes. 1987. Languages of South Sulawesi (Pacific Linguistics: Series D 78). Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. Hammarström, Harald. (2009) Whence the Kanum Base-6 Numeral System? Linguistic Typology 13(2). 305-319. Hammarström, Harald. 2010. Rarities in numeral systems. In Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, 11-60. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hanke, Thomas. 2005. Bildungsweisen von Numeralia: eine Typologische Untersuchung (Berliner Beiträge zur Linguistik 3). Berlin: Weissensee. Henning, Jean C., Theodore A. Henning, Mina Sawaki, Okta Netty Mananian, Tomas Yoteni & Dorce Webori-Mamori. 1991. Perbendaharaan Kata Bahasa Wandamen [Wandamen Vocabulary]. Irian Jaya, Summer Institute for Linguistics. Jacob, Judith M. 1965. Notes on the numerals and numerical coefficients in Old, Middle, and Modern Khmer. Lingua 15. 143-168. Jones, Larry B. 1987. The linguistic situation in the East Cenderawasih Bay, Irian Jaya: A preliminary survey. Unpublished Survey Report, SIL Papua.

27 Jung, Min-Young. 1988. Warembori and Kurudu survey report. Unpublished Survey Report, SIL Papua. Kamholz, David. 2012. The languages of southern Cenderawasih Bay and their history. Paper Presented at the 12-ICAL, Bali. Kijne, I. S. no date. Kuri I, Kuri II. KITLV Manuscripts and Archives [D Or 421:11], Leiden. Klamer, Marian. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kluge, Theodor. 1941. Die Zahlbegriffe der Sprachen Central- und Südostasiens, Indonesiens, Micronesiens, Melanesiens un Polynesiens mit Nachträgen zu den Bänden 2 - 4. Ein fünfter Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte des Menschen nebst einer principiellen Untersuchung über die Tonsprachen. Berlin. Kolff, D.H. Jr. 1828. Reize door den weinig bekenden Zuidelijken Molukschen Archipel en langs de geheel onbekende Zuidwest kust van Nieuw-Guinea; Gedaan in de jaren 1825 en 1826. Amsterdam: C. J. A. Beijerink. Kühn, Heinrich. 1888. Mein Aufenthalt in Neu-Guinea. In H. Gebauer (ed.), Festschrift zur Jubelfeier des 25 jährigen Bestehens des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Dresden, 115-151. Dresden: Kommissionsverlag von A. Huhle. Laskowske, Tom. 2007. The Seko languages of South Sulawesi: A reconstruction. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 15: 116- 210. Le Roux, C. C. F. M. no date. Woordenlijsten. Nachlass of Le Roux, C. C. F. M., item no 30, Nationaal Archief, Den Haag. Le Roux, C. C. F. M. 1950. 25: Taalkundige Gegevens. In De Bergpapoea’s van Nieuw-Guinea en hun Woongebied volume II, 776- 900. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Ma, Felix. 1998. Unpublished survey data on Yokei. Ms., SIL Papua. Marsden, William. 1834. On the Polynesian, or East-Insular languages. In Miscellaneous Works, 1-117. London: Parbury, Allen and Co. Mills, Roger F. 1975. Proto South Sulawesi and proto Austronesian phonology. PhD thesis, University of Michigan. Mona, Stefano, Katharina E. Grunz, Silke Brauer, Brigitte Pakendorf, Loredana Castrì, Herawati Sudoyo, Sangkot Marzuki, Robert H. Barnes, Jörg Schmidtke, Mark Stoneking and Manfred Kayser. 2009. Genetic admixture history of eastern Indonesia as revealed by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26/8: 1865-1877. Müller, Salomon. 1857. Reizen en Onderzoekingen in den Indischen Archipel: Eerste Deel. Amsterdam: Frederik Muller. Onvlee, Louis. 1984. Kamberaas (Oost-Soembaas)-Nederlands Woordenboek. Dordrecht: Foris.

28 Ossart, Nicolas. 2004. Les Systèmes de numération dans les langues austronésiennes et leur fonctionnement. Faits de Langues 23-24: 107- 121. Pott, August F. 1847. Die quinäre und vigesimale Zählmetode bei Völkern aller Weltteile. Halle: Schwetschke & Sohn. Price, David S. & Mark Donohue. 2009. Report on the Ansus Survey, West Yapen Island, Papua, Indonesia. SIL International. URL: http://www.sil.org/silesr/2009/silesr2009-001.pdf (accessed October 6, 2010.) Robidé van der Aa, Pieter Jan Baptist Carel. 1885. Reizen van D. F. van Braam Morris naar de noordkust van Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea: eerste vaart op de Amberno- of Rochussen-Rivier. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 4e volg., Deel X 34. 73–114. Robidé van der Aa, Pieter Jan Baptist Carel. 1879. Reizen naar Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea ondernomen op last der Regeering van Nederlandsche Indie in de jaren 1871, 1872, 1875-1876 door de Heeren P. van Crab en J.E. Teysmann, J.G. Coornengel, A.J. Langeveldt van Hemert en P. Swaan. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Rouffaer, G. P. 1909. De drie opvaarten der Mambèråmo (Noord Nieuw- Guinea) Juli 1884, Jan. 1900 en Juni 1906. Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Aardrijkskundig Genootschap 26. 86–128. Samely, Ursula. 1991. Kedang (Eastern Indonesia): Some Aspects of its Grammar. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Saunders, George. 2003. Comparative vocabulary of the Naueti dialect. Estudos de Línguas e Culturas de Timor Leste/Studies in Languages and Cultures of East Timor 5:79-106. Sawardo, P, Wakidi, Tarno, Y. Lita, S & Kusharyanto. 1987. Struktur Bahasa Lio. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa. Schapper, Antoinette. 2010. Bunaq: A Papuan language of central Timor. The Australian National University PhD Thesis. Schapper, Antoinette. 2011. Phalanger Facts. Notes on Blust’s marsupial reconstructions. Oceanic Linguistics 50: 258-272. Schapper, Antoinette & Marian Klamer. forthcoming. Numerals in the Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian Klamer (ed.), Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology. Silzer, Peter J. 1983. Ambai: An Austronesian language of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. PhD thesis, Australian National University. Sirk, Ülo. 1989. On the evidential basis for the South Sulawesi language group. Studies in Sulawesi linguistics, part 1. (NUSA: Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia vol. 31), edited by James N. Sneddon, 55–82. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. Smith, Geoffrey P. 1988. Morobe Counting Systems. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No.26, 1-132. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

29 Smits, Leo & C. L. Voorhoeve. 1998. The J. C. Anceaux collection of wordlists of Irian Jaya languages B: Non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages (Part II) (Irian Jaya Source Material No. 10 Series B 4). Leiden-Jakarta: DSALCUL/IRIS. Starrenburg, D. B. 1915. Moeilykheden op onderwysgebied. Unpublished manuscript. Stokhof, W. A. L. & Lia Saleh-Bronkhorst. 1980. Holle lists: vocabularies in languages of Indonesia Vol.2: Sula and Bacan islands, North Halmahera, South and East Halmahera (Materials in languages of Indonesia, No.2). (Pacific Linguistics: Series D 28). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Stokhof, W. A. L. 1982. Holle lists: vocabularies in languages of Indonesia Vol.3/4: Central Moluccas: Ambon (II), Buru, Nusa Laut, Saparua (Materials in languages of Indonesia No. 16). (Pacific Linguistics: Series D 50). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Strauch, H. 1876. Verzeichnis von 477 Wörtern, gesammelt während des Aufenthaltes S. M. S. "Gazelle" in Neu-Guinea, Neu-Hannover, Neu- Irland, Neu-Britannien und Brisbane (Queensland). Zeitschrift für Ethnologie VIII. 405–420. Van den Berg, René. 2009. Possession in South Halmahera West New Guinea: typology and reconstruction. In K. Alexander Adelaar & Andrew Pawley (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust (Pacific Linguistics 601), 327- 357. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Van der Sande, G. A. J. 1907. Ethnography and Anthropology (Nova Guinea III). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Von Rosenberg, Carl Benjamin Hermann. 1855. Beschrijving van Engano en van deszelfs bewoners. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 3. 370–386. von Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolai. 1876. Verzeichniss einiger Worte der Papuas der Küste Papua-Kowiay in Neu-Guinea. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (TBG) XXIII. 372–379. Wallace, Alfred R. 1869. The Malay Archipelago. London: Macmillan. Wellfelt, Emilie & Antoinette Schapper. 2013. Memories of migration and contact – East Timor origins in Alor. Paper read at eigth International Convention of Asia Scholars, 24-27 June, Macao. Wielenga, D.K. 1917. Vergelijkende Woordenlijst der verschillende dialecten op het eiland Soemba en eenige Soembaneesche Spreekwijzen. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Deel LXI. Vijfde (=zesde) stuk). Weltevreden: Albrecht & Co; ’s Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff.

31 Table 1: Examples illustrating the notion of “base” Pazeh [uun] Saisiyat [xsy] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression æhæ 1 1 ida 1 2 2 dusa 2 roʃa toLo 3 3 turu 3 4 4 supat 4 ʃepat Laseb 5 5 xasep 5 6 5+1 xaseb-uza 6 ʃayboʃil 7 5+2 xaseb-i-dusa 6+1 ʃayboʃilo æhæ 8 5+3 xaseb-i-turu 8 kaʃpat 9 5+4 xaseb-i-supat 9 lææʔhæ laŋpez 10 10 isit 10 BASES 5-10 10

Table 2: Reconstructable Austronesian numerals PAN POC 1 *esa/isa *ta-sa/(sa)-kai 2 *duSa *rua 3 *telu *tolu 4 *Sepat *pat(i) 5 *lima *lima 6 *enem *onom 7 *pitu *pitu 8 *walu *walu 9 *Siwa *siwa 10 *sa-puluq *sa[-ŋa]-puluq 100 *Ratus *Ratu(s)

Table 3: Western Sumba languages with innovative numeral formation Lamboya Kodi Weyewa [lmy] [kod] [wew] Analysis Expression Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 1 ɗiha hawu:j ~ haiha ~ i:(j)a ~ i:za † iha 2 2 2 ɗuɗa ɗumbujo ~ ɗu:jo ɗu(w)aɗa 3 3 3 tauɗa talu touɗa 4 4 4 pata poto~pato pata 5 5 5 lima lima lima 6 6 6 ani nomo~namo e:ne 7 7 7 pitu pitu pitu 8 2x4 2x4 podo pata panda poto pondo pata ~ panda pata 9 [10]-1 9 kaɓani ɗiha ɓanda iha iwa 10 10 10 kabulu hakambulu kambulu ~ kabulu † Glides which are bracketed represent suspected non-phonemic segments.

Table 4: Central Flores and Lembata languages with innovative numeral formation Rongga Ngadha Ende Keo Lio Nage Kedang [ror] [nxg] [end] [xxk] [ljl] [nxe] [ksx] Analysis Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 (e)sa esa sa haʔesa əsa esa 1 ɦudeʔ 2 2 ɹua zua zua ʔesa rua rua ɗua 2 sue 3 3 telu telu tela ʔesa tedu təlu telu 3 tælu 4 4 wutu vutu wutu ʔesa wutu sutu wutu 4 ɦapaʔ 5 5 lima lima lima ʔesa dima lima lima 5 leme 6 5+1 lima esa lima esa lima sa ʔesa dima ʔesa lima əsa lima esa 6 ɦænæng 7 5+2 lima ɹua lima rua lima zua ʔesa dima rua lima rua lima zua 7 pitu 8 2x4 ɹua mbhutu rua butu rua butu ʔesa rua mbutu rua mbutu zua butu 4x2 butu rai 9 [10]-1 tara esa ter esa tra sa ʔesa tera ʔesa təra əsa tea esa 5+4 leme ɦapaʔ 10 10 sambulu habulu sabulu ha mbudu sambulu sa bulu 10 pulu

Table 5: Timor languages with innovative numeral formation Tokodede Mambae Naueti (Likisa) (Ainaro) [nxa] [tkd] [mgm] Analysis Expression Expression Expression 1 1 iso id se 2 2 ru ru ~ rua kairua † 3 3 telo teul ~ tel kaitelu 4 4 pat fat ~ pat kahaa 5 5 lim lim kailima 6 5+1 wou niso (lim) nain ide kailima resin 7 5+2 wou ru (lim) nai rua kailima resi kairua 8 5+3 wou telo (lim) nai telu kailima resi kaitelu 9 5+4 wou pat (lim) nai pata kailima resi kahaa 10 10 sagulu sakul ~ sagul welisé † Naueti numerals ‘two’ to ‘nine’ contain a fossilised classifier kai < PMP *kahiw ‘wood’

Table 6: Western-central Maluku languages with innovative numeral formation Buru Lisela Hukumina Sula Mangole Taliabo [mhs] [lcl] † [huw] [szn] [mqc] [tlv] Analysis Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 sa umsiun hīa sia in, gaʔija 1 sia, sa 2 2 rua rua ègru gua ‡ gaʔu 2 howo, hoo 3 3 telo tello Ěktelo gatal gatilu 3 tolu 4 4 pa pá Ěkdeha gariha gadīja ~ gadījo 4 ŋhaa 5 5 lima lima Ěklīma lima galīmo 5 lima 6 6 nee né Ěknē gane ganī 6 noŋ 7 7 pito pito Ěkpītu gapitu gapītu 7 hitu 8 10-2 trua etrúa gàtruà gatahua gataʔuwa 8 walu 9 10-1 ʧia eshia gàtasīa gatasia gatasīa 10-1 tasia 10 10 polo polo polo poha pō 10 hulu tueŋ sia † Referred to as “Wayapo” by Wallace (1869). ‡ Numerals ‘two’ to ‘nine’ are prefixed with ga-; on the reflex of *DuSa, however, this has fused together with the prefix to create gua ‘two’ instead of expected *garua.

Table 7: Aru languages with innovative numeral formation Kola Ujir Manombai Dobel Batuley West Barukay [kvv] [udj] [woo] [kvo] [bay] Tarangan [baj] [txn] Analysis Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression 1 1 ot set etu ʔetu ~ je et ôt eti 2 2 rua rua rua Ro ru rua ru 3 3 las lati lasi laj laes lat la 4 4 kafa ka ka ʔawa kau ka kau 5 5 lima lima lima lima lim lêma lim 6 6 dum dubu dubu dubu dum dum dum 7 6+1 dubam dubusam dubem dubujam dubam dubám dobam 8 4x2 kafarua karua karua ʔaro karu kɔrua karu 9 9† tera tera tera jera sêr sêra ser 10 10 fuh uisia uraɸa ia wur urɸaiɸ urɸaɸaj urweu † PARU *tera ‘nine’ may also have been an innovative complex numeral. It is difficult to overlook the similarity between the forms of Arunese ‘nine’ and the clearly subtractive numerals for ‘nine’ in the Flores and the Western-Central Maluku languages already

38 discussed in this paper. However, the absence of an identifiable morpheme denoting ‘one’ makes the case for seeing PARU ‘nine’ as a historically complex subtractive numeral slim.

39 Table 8: Western Cenderawasih languages with innovative numeral formation Wandamen-Windesi Tandia Dusner Yeretuar (Umar) [wad] [tni] [dsn] [gop] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 siri 1 miʔei 1 joser 1 kotem 2 2 muandu 2 ru:si 2 nuru 2 edih 3 3 toru 3 toru:si 3 tori 3 etro 4 4 at 4 atesi:a 4 pati 4 eat 5 5 rim 5 mara:he 5 rimbi 5 matehi 6 5+1 rim e siri 5+1 mara:hemiʔei 5+1 rimbi joser 5+1 matehi kotem 7 5+2 rim e muandu 5+2 mara:heru:si 5+2 rimbi nuru 5+2 matehi edih 8 5+3 rim e toru 5+3 mara:he toru:si 5+3 rimbi tori 5+3 matehi etro 9 5+4 rim e at 5+4 mara:he atasi:a 5+4 rimbi pati 5+4 matehi eat 10 10 sura 5x2 marusibè 10 sampur 5x2 maßtedih 20 1 person siniotu siri 1 person sinòtu miʔèbi † person snontu 1 person nomtuho kotem ‼ 30 1 person + 10 siniotu siri e ßemandi sura snontu sur 1 person +5x2 nomtuho kotem maßtedih ‡ 40 2 persons siniotu muandu 2 persons nomtuho edih utin 100 100 utin siri 100 100 utinho kotem † Fabritius (1855) gives utin for Tandia ‘twenty’. However, this lexeme is clearly related to the lexeme ‘hundred’ in other Cenderawasih languages. No later sources verify utin for Tandia ‘twenty’, and we regard it here as a mistaken attribution of ‘hundred’ to ‘twenty’ in the language. ‡ Dalrymple & Mofu (2012:21) note that they were unable to elicit the Dusner numeral ‘forty’. ‼ Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source.

Table 9: Eastern Cenderawasih languages with innovative numeral formation Yaur Yeresiam Moor Waropen [jau] [ire] [mhz] [wrp] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 rebe 1 ké:te † 1 tatá 1 wosio 2 2 redu 2 rú:hi 2 rúró 2 woruo 3 3 rau 3 kó:rihe 3 óró 3 woro 4 4 ria 4 á:kà 4 áʔó 4 woako 5 5 ßraʤarie 5 ríìma 5 rímó 5 rimo 6 5+1 ßraʤarie da rebe 5+1 rí:ma ìŋkana ké:te 5+1 rímó maʔa tatá 5+1 rimo-wosio 7 5+2 ßraʤarie da redu 5+2 rí:ma ìŋkana rú:hi 5+2 rímó maʔa rúró 5+2 rimo-woruo 8 5+3 ßraʤarie da rau 5+3 rí:ma ìŋkana kó:rihe 5+3 rímó maʔa óró 5+3 rimo-woro 9 5+4 ßraʤarie da ria 5+4 rí:ma ìŋkana á:kà 5+4 rímó maʔa á'ó 5+4 rimo-woako 10 10 eʔraʔeʔre 2 arms bàkí rú:hi ~ 10 tàura 10 saguro 5+5 rí:ma ìŋkana rí:ma 20 1 person ʤomno rebe 1 complete person hàŋkú kú:karà ké:te 1 person naʔu tatá person noŋo kenaw 30 1 person ʤomno rebe da 1 complete person hàŋkú kú:karà ké:te bàkí 1 person+10 naʔu tatá maʔa tàura +10 eʔraʔeʔre +2 arms rú:hi 40 2 persons ʤomno redu 2 complete persons hàŋkú kú:karà rú:hi 2 persons naʔu rúró 100 100x1 utin rebe 5 complete persons hàŋkú kú:karà rí:ma 5 persons naʔu rímó † Accents denote tone.

41 Table 10: Roon [rnn] numerals with innovative numeral formation

Fabritius (1855) Galis (1955) Galis (1955) Anceaux (1961) David Gil (pers. comm. 2012) Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 joser 1 jòsis 1 jòsièdě 1 yoser 1 yosier 2 2 nuru 2 nuru 2 nuru 2 nuru 2 suru, nuru‡ 3 3 ŋokor 3 èŋgòkòr 3 iŋòkòr 3 kor 3 kior‼ 4 4 fiak 4 fak 4 fak 4 fak ~ fiak 4 fiak‼ 5 5 lim 5 rim 5 rim 5 rim 5 rim 6 6 onim 6 wonèm 5+1 rimějòsièdě 6 onem 6 wonem 7 6+2 * onemenuru 6+2 * wonèm-ma-nuru 5+2 riměnuru 7 fik 7 fik 8 6+3 * onemeŋokor 6+3 * wonèm- 5+3 rimiŋgokor 8 war 8 war meŋgòkòr 9 6+4 * onenfak 6+4 * wonèm-fak 5+4 riměfak 9 siw 9 siu 10 6+5 * onemerim 6+5 * wonèm-ma-rim 10 sa(m)fur 10 safur 10 safur 20 20 arzus 20 arsis 20x1 árèsojòsièdě 20 ares 20x2 * ares suru † 30 20+10 árèssojòsièdě-safur 20x3 * ares kior 40 20x2 árèssonuru 100 100 otin 100 utin 100 utin

† Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source. ‡ Denote animate and inanimate respectively: suru ‘two’ counts persons and animals, nuru ‘two’ is for things. ‼ Gil suggests that the {i} in these numerals may be a fossilised 3rd person singular animate infix which is found elsewhere in Roon.

Table 11: Western Yapen languages with innovative numeral formation

Wooi Marau Ansus Papuma Busami [wbw] ‡ [mvr] ‡ [and] [ppm] [bsm] Analysis Expression Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 korisi ko-siri 1 koiri 1 boiri 1 bosiri 2 2 koru ko-iru 2 kodu 2 boru 2 bòru 3 3 toru toru 3 toru 3 botoru 3 botòru 4 4 muana ati 4 manua 4 boa 4 boa 5 5 ding ri(ŋ) 5 riŋ 5 boriŋ 5 riŋ 6 6 wonaŋ wona(n) 6 wonaŋ 6 boʔona 1+[5] boirik’òri 7 7 itu itu 7 itu 7 boitu 2+[5] bòruk’òri 8 8 waru waru [5]+3 indiatoru 5+3 boiɲjatoru 3+[5] botòrok’òri 9 9 siu siw [5]+4 indiataŋ 5+4 boiɲata 4+[5] boa-k’òri 10 10 hura haura 10 ura 10 boura 10 sura 20 20x1 pia rehi ~ piarei 20x1 piarei 20x1 piarei 20x1 piarei pia korisi † 30 20+10 pia heha hura 40 20x2 pia koru 100 20x5 pia ding † Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source. ‡ The Yapen languages Munggui [mth] and Pom [pmo] have the same mixed decimal-vigesimal system with no other complex numerals as Wooi and Marau. They are consequently not reproduced here, but see lists in Smits and Voorhoeve (1998:146-160).

Table 12: Eastern Yapen languages and languages on islands beyond with innovative numeral formation Serui Laut Ambai Wabo [wbb] Kurudu [seu] [amk] [kjr] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 boiri 1 bosiri ~ bowei ~ bojari 1 bosandi 1 bosande 2 2 boru 2 boru 2 boru 2 boru 3 3 botoro 3 botoru 3 boto 3 botoru 4 4 boah 4 boa 4 boate 4 boat 5 5 rim 5 rin 5 ueiŋ 5 boßerim 6 1+[5] boiri-kori 6 wonan 6 weone 5+1 boßerim re bosande 7 2+[5] bor-kori 7 itu 7 witu 5+2 boßerim re boru 8 3+[5] botol-kori [5]+3 indea-toru ‡ 8 wewa 5+3 boßerim re botoru 9 4+[5] boa-kori [5]+4 indea-tan ‡ 9 wesi 5+4 boßerim re boat 10 10 surat 10 sura 10 sure 10 sur 20 20x1 piarei 20x1 piarei 20x1 piasino 20x1 pasinoman-sande † 30 20+10 piarei ja sura 40 20x2 piaru † Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source. ‡ Ambai has an alternative to the additive base-five pattern for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’: boru kondarai sura ‘eight’ and boijarui kondarai sura ‘nine’, roughly translatable as, ‘add two makes ten’ and ‘add one makes ten’, respectively.

Table 13: Numerals of Warembori [wsa]

Le Roux no date: Donohue 1999:47-52 Jung 1988 Jones 1987 ‡ LACM Doorman ca 1912-1913 † Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 iseine 1 waiseno 1 wai-seno 1 ba-seno 2 2 kaindu 2 waitiso 2 waiti-so 2 ba-ruso 3 3 iwonti 3 wonti 3 wait-onto 3 ba-onto 4 4 iwati 4 wati 4 waite-wato 4 ba-wato 5 5 reinti 5 rinti 5 waite-rinto 5 ba-rinto 6 5+1 reintiseine 5+1 wanditi waiseno 5+1 wanditi wansene 6 bi-oniŋsi- 7 5+2 reintikaindu 5+2 wanditi waitiso 5+2 wandinti wanduso 7 bi-maŋgari- 8 5+3 reintiwonti 5+3 wanditi wonti 5+3 wandinti waonto 8 bi-maŋgaγɔsi- 9 5+4 reintiwati 5+4 wanditi wati 5+4 wandinti wawato 9 bi-sεrai- 10 10 sambuto 10 wansambuto 10 wansambuto 10 tamsi- ‼ 20 20 ateri 20 asumbi † Referred to with the name “Mamberamo-Mündung Preidoor-Stamm”. ‡ Referred to with the name “Bonoi”, which is a village name. ‼ Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source.

Table 14: Numerals of Pauwi [-] and Yoke [yki]

Le Roux no date: J Moszkowski Robidé van der Aa Ma 1998 Th Stroeve ca 1912- 1913:258‡ 1885:114 1913 † Yoke [yki] Yoke [yki] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression Analysis Expression bĕserrie oschénu pasari bi-asari- 1 1 1 1 1 kājambā kaiámba pari bi-ari- 2 2 2 2 2 biejāgugussi biméssi parosi bi-osi- 3 3 3 3 3 biejāgagussi biméngsi parasi bi-aγasi- 4 4 4 4 4 bĕriems baóngi parinsi bi-alimsi- 5 5 5 5 5 bĕōnims [Fünfer-System] ponensi ‼ 6 6 5+1 6 - riem manggarie pengmonggari ‼ 7 5+2 5+2 … 7 - rimbā gāgussie pengmenggaromso ‼ 8 5+3 5+3 … 8 - bĕsierah petiserai ‼ 9 9 5+4 9 - tāunsie putaonsi ‼ 10 10 10 10 - āsumbje ‼ ‼ ‼ 20 20 - † Referred to with the name “Pauwe und Busumassi”. ‡ Referred to as Pauwi. ‼ Empty cells in the table indicate that the numeral was not given in the source.

Table 15: Languages of the Onin group with innovative numeral formation Onin Sekar Uruangnirin [urn] [oni] [skz] Analysis Expression Expression Expression 1 1 sa sa sa 2 2 nuwa nowa nua 3 3 teni tεni teni 4 4 fāt fāt fat 5 5 nima nima nima 6 6 nem nεm nem 7 [6]+1 tara sa tara sa taraŋ sa 8 [6]+2 tara nuwa taras nowa teri nua 9 10-1 sa puti sa puti sa puti 10 10x1 pusua pusua puca ‡ 20 10x2 puti nua puti nua ‡ No form given in the source.

Table 16: Languages of Arguni-Bedoanas-Erokwanas group with innovative numeral formation Arguni Goras Erokwanas Fior Bedoanas [agf] [erw] [bed] Analysis Expression Expression Expression 1 1 sia sa ~ sia sia 2 2 ru ru ru 3 3 taur taur taur 4 4 fat vat fat 5 5 rim rim rim 6 6 anεm anjam anεm 7 6+1 ? nĕmbatu nambátu nĕmbatu 8 4x2 butεrua navu narwu 9 9 nεswε naswa nεswε 10 10 samburé sambura samburε 20 20x1 sinon sia sinon sa sinjon sa 40 20x2 sinon ru sinon ru sinjon ru 100 100 ratisa rati sa rati sε

Table 17: Languages of north Bomberai with innovative numeral formation Irarutu Kuri [irh]† [nbn] Analysis Expression Analysis Expression eso eso 1 1 1 rivu ru 2 2 2 toru tor 3 3 3 gegete gegete 4 4 4 frada vida fradĕβi 5 5 5 teresu fra defi freso 6 [5]+1 5+1 tereru fra defi freru 7 [5]+2 5+2 tereturu fra defi fretor 8 [5]+3 5+3 teregite fra defi fregégete 9 [5]+4 5+4 fradaru fra dru 10 5x2 5x2 matuténi tmatu tri eso 20 20 20x1 matuténi rivu 40 20x2 20x2 ‡ † Referred to as “Kaitero”. ‡ No form given in the source.

Table 18: Kowiai [kwh] numerals ‘one’ to ‘forty’ Analysis Expression samosi 1 1 rueti 2 2 towru 3 3 fāt 4 4 rimi 5 5 rim samosi 6 5+1 rim rueti 7 5+2 rim towru 8 5+3 rim fāt 9 5+4 wutsja 10 10 seümbut rueti 20 10x2 seümbut fat 40 10x4 100 100 ratsja

Table 19: Numerals in Malayic languages (from Adelaar 1985:136)

Standard Malay Minangkabau Seraway Middle-Malay Iban Jakarta Malay Sundanese Analysis Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression 1 1 s(u)atu, (ǝ)sa, sǝ- cieʔ, sa- so, sǝ- saʔ, sǝ- (s)atu, sǝ- hiji 2 2 dua duo duo dua duè dua 3 3 tiga tigo tigo tiga tigè tilu 4 4 ǝmpat ampeʔ ǝmpat ǝmpat ǝmpat opat 5 5 lima limo limo limaʔ limè lima 6 6 ǝnam anam ǝnam ǝnam ǝnǝm genep 7 7 tujuh † tujuǝh tujuǝ(h) tujuǝh tujuʔ tujuh 8 10-2 (dǝ)lapan (sa)lapan dǝlapan (dǝ)lapan dǝlapan dalapan 9 10-1 sǝmbilan sambilan sǝmbilan / sǝlapan sǝmilan sǝmbilan salapan 10 10 sǝpuluh sapuluǝh sǝpuluǝ(h) sǝpuluh sǝpulu sapuluh † tujuh < ‘point’ from telunjuk ‘pointing finger’

Table 20: South Sulawesi languages with innovative subtractive numerals (data from Grimes & Grimes 1987, except Seko) Bugis Mandar Sadan Massenrempulu Pitu Ulunna Seko Makassarese [bug] [mdr] [sda] [mvp] Salo [ptu] [sko] [mak] Analysis Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Expression Analysis Expression 1 1 seua mesa meesaʔ mesa mesa mesaʔ 1 sere 2 2 dua daddua dua dua dua duwa 2 ruwa 3 3 tǝllu tallu tallu tallu tallu italu 3 tallu 4 4 ǝppa appaʔ appaʔ appaʔ appaʔ upaʔ 4 appa 5 5 lima lima lima lima lima lima 5 lima 6 6 ǝnnǝng unun anan unun unung unung 6 annaŋ 7 7 pitu pitu pitu pitu pitu pitu 7 tuju 8 10-2 arua karua karua karua karua karoaʔa† 7+1 sagantuju 9 10-1 asera kasera kassera kasera kamesa kamesaʔa 9 salapaŋ 10 10 pulo sapulo sangpulo saʔpulo sappulo sappuloo 10 sampulo † Grimes & Grimes (1987:131) give sakkupaʔang for Seko ‘eight’. We have been unable to find this form in any other source on Seko (e.g., Laskowske 2007, Sirk 1989, Mills 1975) and therefore we discard it here.

Table 21: Ilongot [ilk] Analysis Expression 1 1 sit 2 2 dewa 3 3 teɣo 4 4 opat 5 5 tambiaŋ 6 5+1 tambiaŋ no sit 7 5+2 tambiaŋ no dewa 8 5+3 tambiaŋ no teɣo 9 5+4 tambiaŋ no opat 10 10 (na)puló

Table 22: Summary of innovations in non-OC MP languages System Languages

1-7, 2x4, 10-1, 10, 100 Proto-Lamboya-Kodi

1-7, 2x4, 9, 10, 100 Proto-Lamboya-Kodi-Weyewa

1-5, 5+1, 5+2, 2x4, 10-1, 10, 100 Proto-Ende-Lio-Ngadha-Rongga

1-7, 4x2, 5+4, 10, 100 Kedang

1-5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 5+4, 10, 100 Tokodede, Mambae, Naueti, Kowiai, Ilongot Buru, Lisela, Hukumina, Sula, Mangole, Proto-Malayo-Chamic, 1-7, 10-2, 10-1, 10, 100 Proto-South Sulawesi 1-8, 10-1, 10, 100 Taliabo

1-6, 6+1, 4x2, 9, 10, 100 Proto-Aru

1-5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 5+4, 10, 20, 100 Wandamen-Windesi, Dusner, Yaur, Moor, Waropen

1-5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 5+4, 5+5, 20 Tandia, Yeretaur

1-10, 20 Wooi, Marau, Wabo

1-7, 5+3, 5+4, 10, 20 Ansus, Papuma, Ambai

1-5, 5+1, 5+2, 5+3, 5+4, 10, 20 Busami, Serui Laut, Kurudu

1-6, 6+1, 6+2, 10-1, 10, 20 Onin, Sekar, Uruangnirin

1-6, 6+1, 4x2, 9, 10, 20, 100 Arguni, Goras, Erokwanas, Fior, Bedonanas

54 1-7, 7+1, 8-9, 10 Makassarese

Table 23: Numeral systems of Papuan languages neighbouring AN languages on NG and the islands of Cenderawasih Bay Papuan AN language in direct contact Tanahmerah 2-5-10-? † Irarutu Buruwai-Kamberau 2-5-10-? Irarutu/Kowiai Semimi 5-10 Yeresiam/Kowiai Miere 5-10-? Irarutu/Kuri/Kowiai Airoran 5-10-? Yoke Mairasi 5-10-20 Irarutu/Kuri/Kowiai Bahaam 5-10-20 Erokwanas/Bedoanas/Arguni Mor 5-10-20 Erokwanas Iha 5-10-20 Onin/Sekar Yawa 5-10-20 Serui/Ambai Barapasi 5-10-100 Waropen Sougb 5-20 Wandamen Moskona 5-20 Wandamen Ekari 10-60 Yeresiam Karas 10-100 Uruangnirin Burate Restricted Moor Bauzi Restricted Waropen/Warembori/Yoke Demisa Restricted Waropen Tarunggare Restricted Moor † A question mark denotes that we do not have any information on higher bases in the language.

Table 24: AP patterns of compound numerals ‘five’ to ‘nine’ (adapted from Schapper & Klamer forthcoming) ‘5’ ‘6’ ‘7’ ‘8’ ‘9’ Proto-Alor-Pantar 5 6 5 2 5 3 5 4 Northern Pantar 5 6 5 2 5 3 5 4 Central Alor 5 6 5 2 5 3 5 4 East Alor 5 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 Kui 5 6 5 2 [2] 4 5 4 Straits-West Alor 5 6 10-3 [10]-2 [10]-1 Western Pantar 5 5 1 5 2 5 3 [10]-1

Table 25: Kéo base-four counting system Analysis Expression 1 haʔesa 2 ʔesa rua 3 ʔesa tedu 4 diwu 4+1 hadiwu haʔesa 4+2 hadiwu ʔesa rua 4+3 hadiwu ʔesa tedu 4x2 diwu rua [4x2]+1 diwu rua haʔesa [4x2]+2 diwu rua ʔesa rua