‘One’ in Old Chinese: Primary, Derived or Borrowed?

Abstract Strictly speaking, counting starts with more than one object, usually two, once the principle of sequentiality operates. A corollary of this is that ‘1’, although a base number, usually does not belong to the system of numerals in the languages of the world lexically . While it may become part of such a system based on another atom, engaging in various mathematical operations to construct higher numbers, it often stands apart. This distinction may be shared with other lower numbers, usually those < 5, in language and its written representations. Lower “atoms” also seem to have different mental representations. Typologically, a consequence of the special position of ‘1’ in the numeral system is that it synchronically often has considerable morphosyntactic idiosyncracies; diachronically, it is often not possible to reconstruct protoforms for ‘one’ to the highest ancestral node of a language family. The question therefore arises: where does the concept ‘one’ in Old Chinese come from, i.e. is it primary, derived or borrowed? Co-lexifications of ‘one’ in the languages of the world are often straightforward, including indefinite or interrogative pronouns, body-parts (‘finger’, ‘thumb’, ‘toe’), or verbal notions alluding to the numeral :: object correspondence. Moreover, some theories about the development of numeracy in early pre-literate societies propose primary duality or complementariness, such that the concept of ‘one’ would have to be derived from notions such as ‘other’, ‘half’ or ‘together’. Against this broad typological background, the paper is interested in: (1) What are the attested variants for ‘1’ in Warring States excavated texts?; (2) Which traces of co-lexifications can be detected?; (3) Are some of the complex characters for ‘1’ early borrowings from non-Sinitic languages (e.g. Tai-Kaidai, Hmong-Mien, Austroasiatic)?; (4) What is the relationship between the attested Old Chinese forms, early classifiers and numerals for ‘1’ elsewhere in Sino-Tibetan?; (5) Does the textual evidence allow for a reconstruction of specialised numerals for certain objects or if occurring in particular syntactic environments; (6) can the idea of “primary duality” be substantiated by the material?