janKipo wrote:All of this detail work ignores the fundamental point, that tp actively discourages enumerating multitudes, as a matter of peace of mind, if nothing else. And it does seem we don't really need them for much real stuff
janKipo wrote:Sonja needs to give us a way of reading numerals without any ordinal or cardinal significance -- just as we have (or could use) a way of reading letters without any phonological significance
It would require introducing new words, I suppose. Several new words.
janKipo wrote:'nanpa mute' can mean 'manieth,' some fairly far along ordinal place (i.e third or more), but it can't mean "big number" in the appropriate sense.
I do not understand why it can't
mean "big number", "number [of] many"?
BTW, in some Slavic languages there are two different meanings for English "number":
1. число, liczba - number as a quantity by itself. ("number 3 is greater than number 2"; "to add two numbers")
2. номер, numer - number as a label, a code etc. (phone no., issue no., serial no., consecutive, ordinal number)
So I see "numerals" in toki pona like this:
Given that central notion, concept of "wan" is singularity (not "(number) 1"), we have
soweli wan = singular soweli
it as "one soweli")
nanpa wan = number(число)-of-singular (as many as singular)
-> transl.: "1" (not "1st")
soweli nanpa wan = soweli [of] `number-of-singular`
-> transl.: "soweli labeled `1`" -> "the first soweli"
I wonder, what's Sonja's opinion.
Then, why "nanpa mute" cannot mean "a number of many/plurality/numerous"?
jan Sowelilili wrote:it causes little ambiguity in this context.
Right, in this context "nanpa suli" doesn't mean "important number". It's not ambigous here, but neither "nanpa mute" is. I prefer the latter because a) "mute" suits better for "amount, quantity", b) ambiguity of "mute" in "nanpa mute li ike" can be used to express my attitude: 'jan li moku' is better than 'jan tu li moku'. Maybe I'm more Catholic than the Pope.
janKipo wrote:and 'nanpa suli' is established usage for at least seven years now.
jan Sowelilili wrote:as pointed out this usage is so well established that it causes little ambiguity in this context.
Language custom always wins.