The number names in my language follow no particular system of organization, like this:
So, for example, Night Blindness plus The Truth is Oyster Stew.
This is MUCH better than conventional systems because...
Wondering what this is about? See Advocacy Manifesto.
James, or Nova, or both, were confused:
I'm a little confused by this--do you mean "language" as a sub-language (computer language, maybe) used by English speakers? Or do you mean "language" in the sense of the language one uses in everyday life?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid that "conventional systems" are on a par with your language, and vice versa. At any rate, I can't see the "system of organization" behind a collection of phonemes such as "akhat, shtayim, shalosh, arbah, khamesh" etc., but it does just fine as a numbering system for millions of people.
Here is the addendum I sent out to clarify this point:
Sorry, I wasn't clear, and I was afraid someone would get confused on exactly this point. Yes, I agree that your language, English, does do this to some extent, up to the number you call `Twelve'. But you see, English just doesn't go far enough. After `Twelve', you start to re-use the old names.
So instead of having a real name for the number that is the sum of `Twenty' and `Three', you combine the names of the smaller numbers and call it `Twenty-Three'. The word for this in my language is `Intercostal Clavicle', which is a much better name for it than `Slippery Embankment Night Blindness'. I'm sure I don't need to explain why.
And then similarly, although you do have a separate name, `hundred', for the number 100, you then use that name as part of the names of all the subsequent numbers: `hundred and one', `hundred and two', and so on. But in my language, those numbers are named `Berlin Alexanderplatz', `Flying Squirrel', `Ouch', `Glaucoma', `Toast Points', and so on.
It's much better to have all different names, because...
Notes from this round.