[Aztlan] zero does not mean "shell"

[ECOLING at aol.com]

What I mean was quite simply that the *meaning* of the word "zero"
is not the same as the *meaning* of the word "shell",
and if we are rendering into English with the least distortion possible
what the Maya *meant* when they wrote glyphs using the shell as
one possibility distinct from the entry of any other number in a given
position,

then we *already* have more than sufficient scientific evidence that "zero"
and not "shell" is the better rendering of the meaning
(perhaps even that it is the best rendering we can achieve in
our language, though I do not necessarily assume that to be so).

I find I disagree with almost everything JMJ said in his latest on this
subject, and think it is obvious to those who are not pushing a
fixed idea that we are talking about a meaning very close to the meaning
"zero".   JMJ's discussion does not help us get closer to any
subtle differences here between our concept and the close analog
to it which the Maya used.

It is much easier to point to differences between how we handle
subtraction and how Mayan monuments achieve similar calculation
results with other kinds of expressions.   I have done that elsewhere
and it is probably in the AZTLAN archives, though I don't know where.

Best wishes,

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683



**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for 
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)