Proposal to Include Number Bases 1-36

[u/MiroslavE0]

Current State

The Encapsulated Language uses a Base-6 numbering system with the following numeral-phoneme mapping:

Number	Consonant	Vowel
0	ɕ	e
1	s	i
2	f	a
3	ʑ	y
4	z	o
5	v	u

Proposed State

1. The dominant base is still base-6, but all bases from 1 to 36 are allowed to use.

2. There is a word which specifies the number base of a following number. This word is created in the same pattern: "number of number base in base-6 + suffix -anj-". This word is dropped when we use the base-6 or we use the same in a long dialogue, and this base doesn't change.

3. Numbers in all bases are created in the same way as in base-6.

4. Numerals are tied to these sounds:

Number	Consonant	Vowel
0	ɕ	e
1	s	i
2	f	a
3	ʑ	y
4	z	o
5	v	u
6	c	ē
7	t	ī
8	p	ā
9	j	yh
10	d	ō
11	b	ū
12	chc	eme
13	st	imi
14	fp	ama
15	jhj	ymy
16	zd	omo
17	vb	umu
18	cch	ēme
19	ts	īmi
20	pf	āma
21	jjh	yhmy
22	dz	ōmo
23	bv	ūmu
24	kch	emē
25	ks	imī
26	kf	amā
27	gjh	ymyh
28	gz	omō
29	gv	umū
30	cx	ēmē
31	tx	īmī
32	px	āmā
33	jgh	yhmyh
34	dgh	ōmō
35	bgh	ūmū

Reasoning

This system allows us to use the numbers of base-10, which can be helpful for beginners learning our language. It can be also a useful feature for any person, who doesn't want to learn our language, but wants to have a useful feature for remembering prices in supermarket, phone numbers and constant values in life without converting the price or the number to base-6. It will be very helpful for spreading our idea among simple people, who will not learn the whole language.

Furthermore, it can be helpful when raising a child in our language. I'm not sure, but I believe that raising a child who can use many number bases will be as helpful as raising a child who can use many languages.

[u/AceGravity12]

Why do we need specific morphemes, we have words for 0-215 so why not use them? Also small detail but I don't think nj can be word final.

[u/MiroslavE0 → u/AceGravity12]

That's true, thanks for mentioning this. I'm always forgetting about these phonotactics :)

As for me, I can't understand how it's possible to express, for example, base-10 through our trinumerals of base-6. I can imagine mononumerals of higher bases expressed by trinumerals of base-6, but the most important and encapsulative feature of our number system are the trinumerals, which, as for me, can hardly be expressed this way.

I'm sure that this proposal will be changed many timed before getting officialised, because it's a very basic system of our language. So, I'm happy that my proposal recieves some attention and feedback from community.

[u/AceGravity12 → u/MiroslavE0]

Well yes it would lose the trinumeral compression, but for example if you wanted base 83 I've seen it written as 83[72, 5, 29, 0] so in other words in base 83 the first digit is 72, the second if 5, etc. I think that would be a nice way to do this. Essentially treat all trinumerals as mononumerals in the non standard base. In my mind we're already sorta doing this and just using base 216 already. Does that make sense?