1

Igala Numeral System: Proposal for Modifications

Salem Ochala Ejeba

Department of Linguistics and Communication Studies, University of Port Harcourt

E-mail: salem.ejeba@uniport.edu.ng Telephone: 07032031984

Abstract

The numeral system of Igala displays mathematical operations of addition, multiplication and

subtraction in the realisation of especially non-basic numbers. The language is a quasi

decimal system attested in its lower numerals and a majorly vigesimal system overall. The

source of data for this paper is introspective evidence of the native speaker competence. With

the need to count enormously large figures in contemporary times and limitations on the

utility of the traditional system in achieving this, the difficulty of a vigesimal system and the

merits of a proper decimal system in harmony with other numeral systems in a modern world;

the need for a guided modification of the primitive model presents itself. The present work

proposes a modification based on adjustment to a proper decimal system, elimination of

subtraction in regular counting and the use of the multiplicative morpheme only at a higher

numeral level in favour of the use of juxtaposition overall, syntactic reordering of numeral

elements to achieve simplicity and meaning shift in some existing units in the language to

cater for new units in the higher numerals. The modification plan put is based on aspects of

the lexical, morphological and syntactic system of the norm, with only minimal essential

shifts. For the utility of the proposal put forward, it is the position here that Igala linguists,

language enthusiasts, educationists, authors and students endeavour to popularize the result of

this work as effective means by which the proposal herein will move from the purely

academic to become a functional system for the Igala language community.

1 Introduction

Numeral systems of human languages differ in organisation, mode of replication of higher

numbers on the basis of more basic ones and the grammatical devices utilized in the

realisation of these. At times, the differences in the numeral systems of languages are based

on the significant needs basically motivated by demands on what needs to be counted and at

other times, they are simply based on the nature of language which is more philosophically

explained beyond certain systematic reasons for variations that may be adduced.

2

Considering the Igala numeral system for instance, it may be adduced that for a primitive

civilization that only had to contend with the number of children in a polygamous family, the

total tuber of yams in large barns and the number of people gathered in the community square

of some sizeable villages; counting using the physical digits, twigs, kola nuts and a few

cowries would have been sufficiently functional. Any number considered overwhelming and

unnecessary to number specifically could have been simply handled in the language using

paraphrastic expressions: ‘there was a mammoth crowd present’,

‘there was more than enough food’, ‘a very large

sum of money’ This solution of the Igala language is however overwhelmed and rendered

grossly inefficient in a modern society with a large market economy running muti-million

Naira transactions, within a computer based civilization where several other activities are

performed with enormous numerals involved that need to be specified with precision in the

numeral system. For the counting system of a particular language like Igala to thus remain

relevant to its speakers, it must be engineered to cater for the contemporary counting needs.

Ejeba (2011) is committed to observing the organisation of the numeral system as it is now in

the language. It is the commitment in the following pages of this work to see what can be

learnt from the traditional state of the language in influencing (maybe engineering) her

counting system in contemporary times to remain functional, catering for an unrestrictedly

productive mode of counting in contemporary times.

The first part of this work is basically a restatement of Ejeba (2011), to ensure an appropriate

acquaintance with the in situ organisation of the Igala system.

2 Organisation of the Igala Numeral System

Ejeba (2011) and Omachonu (2011), as well as Etu (1999) and Ocheje (2001) have done

some work on the Igala numeral system. Whereas Ejeba and Omachonu present

straightforward linguistic descriptions of the state of the system, Etu and Ocheje present

suggestions on modifications to it.

Like the case of Yoruba attested in Welmers (1973), the Igala numeral system is in a

structurally complex state that presents quite some difficulty to the user and learner.

Omachonu (2011:84) notes that “It appears from all indications that the traditional counting

system of Igala did not go beyond the figure one thousand (1000)”. The complexity and limit

on the numeral system have frequently led to a code mixing situational context for a majority

3

of Igala speakers where the use of the Igala counting system is avoided in preference for the

use of others, particularly that of English.

Ejeba (2011) presents the forms of Igala numerals from ‘nought’ through to the thousandth,

with their various additive values as follows,

0 42

1 / 50

2 60

3 70

4 80

5 90

6 100

7 101

8 102

9 110

10 111

11 112

12 150

13 160

14 200

15 300

16 400

17 500

18 600

19 700

20 800

21 900

22 1000

4

23 1001

29 1002

30 1050

40 1100

2.1.1 Unit Expressions/Morphological Forms in the Numeral system

As it can be observed below, there are separate units for the numerals ‘zero’ to ‘ten’ in Igala.

0 4 8

1 / 5 9

2 6 10

3 7

There are also other separate forms for higher units: for ‘twenty’ or (the literal

meaning of this is not known for certain; but for the tone pattern however, it would have

easily passed for ‘whole’) ‘twenty’ and, for ‘fifty’ or (lit. stick) ‘fifty’,

() for ‘two hundred’() (lit. seed (money)) for ‘four hundred’, and the highest

unit is ‘eight hundred’ in this hierarchy. The units for ‘two hundred’ and ‘four

hundred’ may occur with an optional expression, ‘money’. This may be a pointer to the

fact that these units came into the numeral system with the invention of money in Igala

economy at one point or the other. Other morphological units in the numeral system are the

morpheme (lit. each) ‘unit’, the overt addition morpheme, (lit. enter) ‘add’, the

multiplication morpheme, (lit. attach) ‘multiply’ and the subtraction morpheme, (lit.

pluck) ‘subtract’.

2.1.1 Addition in the Numeral system

The lower base numerals, particularly ‘one’ to ‘ten’, are used for counting the additions up to

‘nineteen’ in phrase combination with whatever is added. After these juxtapositions, there is

the new unit, for ‘twenty’,

5

11 16

12 17

13 18

14 19

15 20

Observe above that there is a special form for ‘one’ in the combination meaning ‘eleven (ten

plus one)’, using the alternate/clitic form, instead of the fully-fledged morpheme. This

alternate form also occurs everywhere else where the sum of addition brings the number to

‘plus one’ in the numeral system, as illustrated in some instances below,

21

31

41

101

1001

Observe further from the latest set of examples that beyond ‘twenty’, in the addition of ‘one’,

a new morpheme, (lit. enter) ‘add’ is attached obligatorily before the added value. Notice

that in counting ‘plus one’ beyond the numeral ‘twenty’, the morpheme, ‘unit’ makes

‘one’ an alternate expression beyond twenty, as the sense of ‘unit’ may stand at this rate to

also express ‘plus one’, as we have shown in ‘twenty one’ through to ‘one thousand and one’.

Beyond the observation on the use of the addition marker, the /, in expressing

‘plus one’ in numerals beyond ‘twenty’ in the addition of ‘one’, this form is also utilised

generally in the higher numerals from ‘twenty’ as an additive form of other lower numerals

generally, being ‘one’ through ‘nineteen’ in Igala.

22 ()

23 ()

29 ()

32 ()

6

102 ()

110 ()

111 ()

112 ()

1002

1010

1019

1050

1100

These further instances show that the full addition template is ... ... This is different

from the alternating situation in the addition of ‘one’ between /. The restriction

of the co-occurrence of these morphological forms is termed here to be a semantic one: one

cannot have ‘one unit’, as one is already a unit and vice versa. For the numeral units ‘two’ to

‘nineteen’ in Igala however, the full template or an elliptic form may occur. This is as sure as

the occurrence of ‘two units’, ‘ten units’ or ‘nineteen units’ can be conceived as semantically

normal.

For numeral values lower than ‘thousand’ which are ‘twenty’ upwards, even though the

expression ‘unit’ may be utilized, it is phonologically optional, as shown using the

brackets in the immediately preceding examples.

The addition template ... ... involves the multiplication morpheme, (lit. attach)

‘multiply’ which shall be discussed shortly. However, the implication of multiplication for

the sum of the mathematical operation does not have any straying effect on addition. Take an

instance from ‘one thousand and two’. The mathematical

operation of the expression would be as follows,

eight hundred add two hundred add unit multiply two

7

Essentially, any number considered as a unit remains that unit. This is as much as any

numeral times one remains that numeral as an integer. Thus, the sum of 800+200+8

units=1008. Multiplication in the addition mode is as a result a mere grammatically idiomatic

expression without actual mathematical productivity in this case.

The simple additive morpheme, , may also be used in isolation for addition. This is the

case in instances such as (lit. two hundred add fifty),

(lit. eight hundred add one hundred) ‘eight hundred’ and

(lit. eight hundred add two hundred) ‘one thousand’. It could be observed

that this possibility is not restricted to the Igala unit numerals, ‘one’ through ‘nineteen’.

Whereas in phrasal combinations for simple additions of the lower numerals, ‘eleven’ to

‘nineteen’, the structural means is generally by the juxtaposition of ‘ten’, the highest unit of

the base numerals that can be paired with other units below it; juxtaposition for the purpose

of addition in the higher numerals is restricted only to the two isolates in the system,

(twenty + ten) ‘thirty’ and (four hundred + two hundred) ‘six hundred’.

The hierarchy of occurrence is generally from a bigger number to a lower one without

exception. Thus, the forms * (two hundred + four hundred), * (ten +

twenty) and maybe * (three + ten) are deviant structures for addition.

‘seventy’ however occurs, but as the sum shows, this case is rather for multiplication, and the

as it shall be demonstrated shortly under the discussion of multiplication, is

actually an elliptical form for the underlying structure, (twenty multiply

three + ten) rather than simply * (three + ten), which is a deviant interpretation as far

as the Igala language system is concerned.

One other interesting fact of the Igala numeral system is revealed in the hierarchical

organisation of its metric system. As it has already been suggested in the analysis in previous

statements in this work, it seems clear from the occurrence of ‘unit’ between higher

numerals and numerals between ‘one’ and ‘nineteen’ that numerals ‘one’ to ‘nineteen’ are

considered mere units of the lower numerals to be added to higher numerals. This system

would contrast with languages like English in which the units are ‘one’ through ‘nine’ only.

Observe the following further examples for this fact,

8

1001

1002

1010

1019

1020 *

1050 *

As the ungrammaticality of the treatment of ‘twenty’ and ‘fifty’ as units in ‘one thousand and

twenty’ and ‘one thousand and thirty’ suggests, these are not lower units in Igala. Thus for

English it may be ‘units’, ‘tens’, ‘hundreds’, ‘thousands’, etc. But, for Igala it is ‘units’,

‘twenties’, ‘fifties’, ‘two hundreds’, ‘four hundreds’ and ‘eight hundreds’. This fact of metric

hierarchy also finds relevance in counting using multiplication, as shall be demonstrated

subsequently. This observation, particularly on ‘twenty’, could have been responsible for

Omachonu’s (2011:17) categorisation of Igala as a language which possibly belongs to “the

group of languages which have a vigesimal numeral system.”

From the data so far, it is clear that the full template for addition, considering syntactic

configuration rather than phonological optionality is,

Higher Additive - Unit -Multiplication -Basic

Numeral Morpheme Morpheme Morpheme Numeral

Translating this into the object language value, the template would be,

Higher Numeral((-(()-))Basic Numeral)

2.1.2 Multiplication in the Numeral system

The multiplication morpheme in Igala is (lit. ) ‘multiply’. This is the morpheme

used for multiplication, involving the numerals for multiplication and the lower numerals in

Igala. There are three numeral forms used as bases for multiplication in Igala: ‘unit’,

‘twenty’ and ‘fifty’. Welmers (1973) observes that primitive numeral systems

generally use the physical digits, twigs, kola nuts and cowries for counting. This makes it

possible that the Igala forms, ‘(sequence of) twenties’, probably representing

9

(lit. the whole of hands and legs) ‘all the physical digits’, and ‘(sequence

of) fifties’, probably representing ‘twigs’ evolved earlier for counting in the mathematical

experience of the Igala progenitors. Welmers (1973) observes generally that ‘twenty’ may be

established as the primitive whole or upper limit evolved for counting and on which basis

further mathematical operations such as multiplications are possible. This is probably the

case in Igala, which Omachonu (2011) has described as a vigesimal system.

It could be observed that the forms of these numerals, ‘one’, ‘twenty’ and

‘fifty’, as discrete units in the Igala counting system are different from these latter

forms, ‘unit’, ‘twenty’ and ‘fifty’, that are used as bases for mathematical

operation of multiplication. It is observed in this work therefore that their morphemic

contents may be expressed as follows,

/‘one’ and ‘unit’

one one.SEQ

‘twenty’ and ‘twenty’

twenty twenty.SEQ

‘unit’ and ‘fifty’

fifty fifty.SEQ

It may be observe that the discrete forms of the numerals plainly carry the meaning of the

individual numeral, whereas the forms used for counting carry the additional meaning

(seq)uencer. This is clear in the multiplication structures below,

40 100

60 150

70 160

80 300

10

90 380

Also observe more of the examples below,

400 * 950

500 1000 *

Aside which is not productive as a multiplier, ‘twenty’ and ‘fifty’ are highly

productive as numbers for multiplication in the system, even though within the parameters of

the lower numerals of Igala, ‘one’ to ‘nineteen’. It must be noted that recent innovation in the

language now admits ‘twenty’ (the form described here as occurring without a

sequencer) as a multiplier. Thus, the forms of numerals with can now occur with

instead. This is not true for the ‘fifty’ situation. All these observations may be made in the

following examples,

40 150 *

60 160

70 300 *

80 380

90 500 *

100 950 *

Metric hierarchy also finds relevance in the multiplicative counting system. The combination

usually has the higher numeral preceding the lower grammatically. For this reason, ordering

the co-occurring elements otherwise would yield simply ungrammatical structures,

40 * 300 *

60 * 500 *

100 * 950 *

11

2.1.3 Subtraction in the Numeral System

The subtraction morpheme in Igala is (lit. pluck) ‘subtract’.

73 299

95 999

146 991

One very prominent fact of the Igala subtractive forms is that any number may be subtracted,

lower or higher numeral. This makes the subtraction fairly straightforward without the kind

of complexity associated with the other mathematical operations in the numeral system. It is

worthy of further note that subtraction in the numeral system is however frequently used in

monetary transactions and scarcely anywhere else in the numeral experience of Igala. This

could thus be a fairly recent intuitive device to avoid the complexity involved in the

statement of certain numerals in terms of addition or multiplication. Generally however, the

assessment is that this strategy is insufficient to sustain the usability and viability of the

numeral system with other numeral systems, like that of English, as superior contenders in

many contexts of language use. The insufficiencies of the in situ numeral system of Igala for

counting thus brings to the fore the need to modify it.

2.2 Miscellaneous Influences on the Numeral System

Particularly in the counting of money today, the influence from the British Pound system

evaluation, the influence of the Hausa language and the influence of the English language

most recently are evident in the Igala counting system. ‘pound’ is used in evaluating

the Naira as a hangover from the British sterling system. Value equivalence is in consonance

with the earlier period of the changeover to the Naira, when a pound was twice the value of a

Naira. Thus, forms like these occur: (lit. pound times five) ‘ten Naira’,

(lit. pound times fifty) ‘one hundred Naira’ and so on.

The Hausa influence is evident from the counting in sets of two hundreds using (lit.

bag in Hausa). (lit. one bag) ‘two hundred Naira’, (lit. bag times

two) ‘four hundred Naira’, (lit. bag times ten) ‘two thousand Naira’.

12

These first two possibilities involve the use of code-mixed forms. However, the third

influence, which is observed mostly among the younger generation of speakers, is in the use

of straightforward English, avoiding the complications of any of the earlier two alternatives

altogether in counting, particularly of money and enormously large figures. These are means

which speakers of the language utilize as some sort of solution to a complicated numeral

system of their own language, and this is a rampant pattern of situational code

mixing/switching in the Igala language state.

It could thus be observed from this section that the Igala numeral system is changing like a

juvenile facing numerous and conflicting consciousness in the process of maturation to

adulthood. Although it is not even a favourable choice to keep the system in the infancy of a

primitive system that has long outlived its viability, the system must not be watched turning

out to be delinquent, burdensome to and neglected by its users – the Igala native speakers.

This is the case for a guided modification.

2.3 Former Proposals on the Modification of the Numeral System

Etu (1999) and Ocheje (2001) have put forward certain proposals for modification to the

Igala numeral system. Etu and Ocheje’s modifications are the same in many circumstances in

that they both endorse the use of ‘twenty’ rather than ‘sequence of twenties’ for

the calculation of higher numerals and in a vigesimal-type that does away with the use of

‘sequence of fifties’ as an alternate form. The following, for instance exhaust the list in Etu

(1999), just as Ocheje (2001) too gets to a thousand in his consideration.

100 600

200 700

300 800

400 900

500 1000 o

The only difference between Ocheje (2001) and Etu (1999) is that whereas Etu (1999)

13

introduces a new unit into the system, for ‘a thousand’ as a replacement for the norm,

, Ocheje (2001) introduces another, , for the same figure.

As structurally economical as the proposed new units may be compared to the norm, the

major issue with the numeral system is not merely in counting the thousandth. The challenge

of the numeral system is how to engineer it to cater for enormous possibilities in handling

infinite numerals. Both Etu and Ocheje also avoid additions even between the cited numerals.

These two proposals stop at the mere lexical substitution of the word for ‘one thousand’.

Etu (1999) and Ocheje’s (2001) proposals in essence do not influence the problematic

vigesimal nature of the Igala numeral system. This leaves the problem of the complexity of

the system in situ unresolved. Any modification to the system without adequate modification

to a proper decimal system should be further modified. This is because the need of the Igala

numeral system in view of contemporary realities and challenges to the norm is for the

modification to a proper decimal system. In spite of this identified limitation of the

Etu/Ocheje proposal, they have an achievement: the recognition of the need to make

modifications to the numeral system. The present work thus proceeds to lay a clear outline for

a modification plan to the Igala numeral system.

2.4 The Current Proposal

There are four conditions that should be considered in an adequate proposal for modification

of the Igala numeral system: (i) The modification of the numeral system to a proper decimal

system, (ii) The elimination of subtraction in regular counting and the restricted use of the

morpheme for multiplication only at a higher numeral level where the use of juxtaposition

would not clearly explicate the intended numeral. The phenomenon of subtraction would

however remain in the language system for mathematical operations, and multiplication

would be represented generally in the numeral system through juxtaposition. (iii) The

syntactic reordering of numeral elements to achieve simplicity, for instance would

become ‘thirty’ instead of ‘sixty’ and (iv) Allowing meaning shift in some of the already

established units in the language, to cater for new units in the higher numerals.

2.4.1 Modification of the Numeral System to a Proper Decimal System

It has been observed earlier in this work that separate units exist for counting ‘nought’

through to ‘ten’; and the numerals ‘eleven’ to ‘nineteen’ are derived by addition to ten. This

14

shows a form of decimal arrangement at the level of the lower numerals. It is proposed here

that the Igala numeral system be modified to a proper decimal system throughout. The

implication of this proposal is that ‘ten’ and the multiples of ten would be used for counting

at all the levels. Furthermore, the use of ‘twenty’ as well as ‘fifty’ as base numerals would be

eliminated. By this proposal therefore, the form for ten would remain and the units,

for ‘twenty’ and for ‘fifty’ would be lost as these values.

2.4.2 Elimination of Subtraction and the Restricted Use of the Multiplication

Morpheme in the Numeral System

Even though the use of subtraction avoids the complexities involved in addition or

multiplication, it introduces another form of difficulty: It gives quite some strain to the

memory as any number could be subtracted from any larger number and the result is often

highly dynamic. Moreover, this mode of counting is restricted to counting money in situ.

Subtraction is therefore dispensable in formulating a proper counting system for Igala.

Since the current proposal favours a decimal system, and since the use of the multiplication

morpheme in the original numeral system is majorly vigesimal, being based on

‘twenty’, and ‘fifty’, it is part of the present proposal that the multiplication system

restrict the use of this morpheme. Particularly, this morpheme would be restricted to use

functionally at a higher numeral level where the use of juxtaposition would not clearly

explicate the intended numeral. Otherwise, juxtaposition should be utilized generally in the

numeral system in expressing multiples of the decimal system. This strategy would not be a

strange one for the numeral system. This is because the in situ counting mode is replete with

cases of juxtaposition: (lit. three ten/twenty times three add

ten) ‘seventy’, (lit. five subtract two/pounds times five

subtract two) ‘eight Naira’, and so on.

2.4.3 Syntactic Modification of Elements for Multiplication

Since multiplication is a necessary phenomenon in the numeral system, it will be a very

economical strategy to obtain it generally by the juxtaposition of the basic numerals, the units

‘one’ to ‘nine’ with a new base numeral, ‘ten’, in obtaining tens. New higher unit morphemes

will also be utilized in this pattern in obtaining hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, and so

on. The template suggested would be as follows,

15

(Basic numeral) – Units (one to nine)

(Basic Numeral-Ten) – Tens

(Basic Numeral-Hundred) – Hundreds

(Basic Numeral-Thousand) – Thousands

(Basic Numeral-Million) – Millions

(Basic Numeral-Billion) – Billions

(Basic Numeral-Trillion) – Trillions

By this proposal, the hierarchy of occurrence for multiplication in the in situ order of a larger

number followed by a lower one would be reversed. Thus, for instance, the following would

be the forms for the tens. The proposed new unit for a hundred is also indicated,

10 60

20 70

30 80

40 90

50 100

However, since the addition template,

Higher Additive - Unit -Multiplication -Basic

Numeral Morpheme Morpheme Morpheme Numeral

Translated,

Higher Numeral ((-(()-))-Basic Numeral)

Or simply,

... ((-(()-))-Basic Numeral)

16

Contains the multiplication morpheme which is however not productive as a multiplier, it

could be allowed to remain as being simply idiomatic of the full expression of addition.

However, the full expression would remain optional as before, the only obligatory element

being the additive morpheme, .

2.4.4 Meaning Shift for New Units in the Numeral System

The English-type decimal system with units, tens, hundreds, and so on is proposed for Igala

in this work. In situ, the Igala system already contains ‘unit’, ’ten’, and as in (2.4.3)

above, ’hundred’ is suggested as a new numeral designation. If this is accepted, it

would be a case of the in situ meaning of ‘sequence of twenty’ shifting rather to

‘hundred’ as a new numeral in the system. It is further suggested that the other higher

decimal units be derived from already existing morphemes in the language with meaning

shift taking place as suggested below,

Igala Morpheme Present Numeral Value Proposed Numeral Value

Unit Unit

Ten Ten

Twenty Hundred

Fifty Thousand

Two hundred Million

Four hundred Billion

Eight hundred Trillion

With this, the decimal system of Igala would be as stated as follows.

Proposed Igala Decimal System

‘units’

‘tens’

17

‘hundreds’

‘thousands’

‘millions’

‘billions’

‘trillions’

2.4.5 Sample of the Modified Igala Numeral System

Based on the modifications so far made in the Igala numeral system so far, the forms of

various numerals of the language are presented as follows,

0 49

1 / 50

2 60

3 70

4 80

5 90

6 100

7 101

8 102

9 110

10 111

11 112

12 123

13 130

14 149

15 150

16 160

18

17 200

18 300

19 400

20 500

21 600

22 700

23 1000

29 1,000,000

30 1,000,000,000

40 1,000,000,000,000

With this modification, as demonstrated in the listing of Igala numerals to the trillionth

above, the Igala numeral system would have been engineered to handle enormous numbers.

Intermediate possibilities between the whole form numerals can also be handled within the

ambit of the current modification. Some possibilities have been illustrated in the list to the

trillionth above. For a very complex operation, it can be demonstrated that Igala numeral may

now handle the expression of the enormous figure 1,500,300,700,100 for instance as follows,

Trillion add billion multiply five hundred add million multiply three hundred add thousand

multiply seven hundred add hundred

‘One trillion, five hundred billion, three hundred million, seven hundred thousand and one

hundred’

3 Summary and Conclusion

The observation in this work shows that the Igala numeral system as it is now operates a

quasi decimal arrangement at the level of the lower numerals. However, this occurrence is

considered too limited to form the basis on which to characterise Igala as operating a proper

19

decimal system. Counting in sets of twenties and fifties is observed to be very productive in

the language, and the present work is in agreement with Omachonu (2011) and Ejeba (2011)

who characterize the norm for Igala numeral system as majorly vigesimal overall.

The present work goes on to make proposal for modification of the numeral system of Igala,

suggesting four conditions that should be considered in doing this: The adjustment of the

numeral system to a proper decimal system; the elimination of subtraction in regular counting

and the restricted use of the multiplicative morpheme only at a higher numeral level where

the use of juxtaposition would not clearly explicate the intended numeral figure; the syntactic

reordering of numeral elements to achieve simplicity; and meaning shift in some of the

already established units in the language, to cater for new units in the higher numerals. This

way, the Igala numeral system is considered to have been engineered enough to remain

functional for the native speakers of the language, catering for the counting of enormous

numeral figures as a contemporary demand on any numeral system that must retain vitality.

In this paper, the modification plan put forward is based on aspects of the lexical,

morphological and syntactic system of the in situ counting mode, with only an essential shift

to a proper decimal system and the semantic replacement of some categories of the present

forms. With the demonstration of the viability of the current proposal, it is displayed that

there is now a tenable reorganisation of the Igala numeral system, competent enough to

handle infinite possibilities of numbers. This makes the present work not merely a lame

description before this aspect of the language dies, but a suggestion of (call it intervention on)

how this important aspect of the language system could be preserved and rejuvenated to be

highly functional for the speakers of Igala. This is the basis for intervention, ‘salvage’ or

‘rescue’ linguistics (Jibril 2011).

4 Recommendation

A work such as this one that sets up a technically workable model is simply a first step in

engineering the numeral system of Igala. Beyond this, there are further factors to consider

such as codification and acceptability by the end users. It is granted that the proposal in this

work is radical with far reaching consequences. Particularly, the older generation of Igala

speakers may at first find it challenging to adapt to a revolution which will necessarily make

them patient learners of a new norm in the counting system of their native language.

However, considering the merits of the proposed adjustments to the numeral system in

making it sufficient for enormous counting tasks and in keeping it vital to generations of

20

Igala speakers; it is the position here that Igala linguists, language enthusiasts, educationists,

authors and students endeavour to popularize the result of this work. This would involve

critical discourse on the terms of the proposal, student projects and other scholarly works on

further investigations into the numeral system of Igala, published literary works using the

proposed system, as well as phatic communication by the Igala population utilizing the

enhanced system. This is the only means through which the proposal herein will move from

the purely academic to become a functional system for the Igala language community.

References

Ejeba, S.O. 2011. Igala numeral system: Preliminary observations. Paper Presented at the

24th Annual Conference of the Linguistic Association of Nigeria (CLAN) on

Language, Literature and Culture in a Multilingual Society, Bayero University, Kano,

Nigeria.

Etu, Y. 1999. Igala expressions and historical landmarks. Lokoja: Enenjo Printers andPublishers.

Jibril, M. 2011. Language policies, globalisation and multilingualism: The imperative of

Rescue Linguistics. Keynote Address Presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the

Linguistic Association of Nigeria (CLAN) on Language, Literature and Culture in a

Multilingual Society, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.

Ocheje, D.H. 2001. Modernised Igala numeral system. Mimeograph.

Omachonu, G.S. 2011. Derivational processes in Igala numeral system: Some universal

considerations. Journal of Universal Language 12:2, 81 – 101.

Quirk, R and S. Greenbaum. 1973. A university grammar of English. Essex: Pearson

Education Limited.

Trask, R.L. 1997. A student’s dictionary of language and linguistics. London: Arnold.

Welmers, Wm.E.1973. African language structures. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.