Monogenesis is pretty deeply out of favor in historical linguistics these days. Afaik most linguists specializing in far ancient protolanguages just frankly adm

Monogenesis is pretty deeply out of favor in historical linguistics these days. Afaik most linguists specializing in far ancient protolanguages just frankly admit that their techniques aren't capable of deciding it in either direction. There's nothing even near consensus on how far back you'd have to reach to figure it out either. With theories it could be as recent as the out of africa expansion 50k years ago, or emerging with or even predating emergence of anatomically modern humans ~300k y/o, or literally anywhere in between. Confidently establishing linguistic monogenesis either true or false is like nobel prize shit with significant ramifications across the entire understanding of human language. They have definitely considered number bases. The simple near universal human fact of "fingers + toes = 20" means any number of unrelated languages are likely to converge on that base and its factors. It doesn't disprove that theory it just isn't a useful bit of data towards it either way.