Toki Pona Forums

The biggest problem with that system -- aside from being incredibly ungainly, even compared with things like tresimal systems -- is that it does not help at all with a major use of numerals, for all the addresses we have (urls, telephone, bank accounts, actual street addresses, etc.) We need, within standard tp, names for numerals and letters. Now, once we have those, so hopelessly untp sorts might use these names to make modifier use as numbers. Tsk, tsk!

mi jo e pilin ante.
I have an other idea.
We could "spell" a number, and here we could use "pi" to separate the numbers.
For example: 2014= tu pi ala pi wan pi tu tu
1995= wan pi luka tu tu pi luka tu tu pi luka
It seems to be easier than the previous method.

Yes, better. Still ungainly, since in continues to have the additive versions for creating the separate digits, and it introduces a novel use of 'pi' (well, at least an unexpected extension. but not ambiguous, since 'pi' is not otherwise used with numbers). The end result is that saying numbers is rather onerous (though not much worse, I suppose, than the "four score and ten" versions of some languages). Given this, though, one expects to see those that love big numbers immediately start working on the frills.

for big numbers, you can use the previous method or the new one with it.
For example, 1 862 374= wan pi luka tu wan pi luka wan pi tu pi tu wan pi luka tu pi tu tu
1 000 000= luka luka ali ali ali(10*100*100*100)

so if there is pi, it's the second method, but if there is no pi, it's the first.

And, if it is 'wan', 'tu' or 'luka' it is additive, but 'mute' or 'Ali' it is multiplicative. More and more complex, with the additive parts before the multiplicative being a multiplier as a whole and the additive parts after being additive again. What do you do with something like 125000, which seems to need a lot of back-and-forthing between additive and multiplicative elements?

125 000= wan pi tu pi luka pi ala tenpo tu wan

Well, I meant with the additive -multiplicative system(numbers not numerals), but I notice even here you have a new wrinkle: 'tenpo' and the number of repetitions of the numeral as a post posited modifier. Convenient, but why - English aside - use 'tenpo' rather than 'sitelen', say? Or 'sijelo'?

I used that way, because it's the most convenient. And I used it because it means "times" for example: tenpo tu wan la: three times. With other words it would have been absolute nonsense.

But there is nothing about time in multiplication. In this case you just have three occurrences or instances or exemplars of the numeral, pretty much simultaneously. I am not saying 'tenpo' is wrong, since we don't have words that exactly fit the case, but its only reason for use seems to be as an English calque.