The voice of Funes, out of the darkness, continued. He told me that toward 1886 he had devised a new system of enumeration and that in a very few days he had gone before twenty-four thousand. He had not written it down, for what he once meditated would not be erased. The first stimulus to his work, I believe, had been his discontent with the fact that "thirty-three Uruguayans" required two symbols and three words, rather than a single word and a single symbol. Later he applied his extravagant principle to the other numbers. In place of seven thousand thirteen, he would say (for example) Máximo Perez; in place of seven thousand fourteen, The Train; other numbers were Luis Melián Lafinur, Olimar, Brimstone, Clubs, The Whale, Gas, The Cauldron, Napoleon, Agustín de Vedia. In lieu of five hundred, he would say nine. Each word had a particular sign, a species of mark; the last were very complicated. . . . I attempted to explain that this rhapsody of unconnected terms was precisely the contrary of a system of enumeration. I said that to say three hundred and sixty-five was to say three hundreds, six tens, five units: an analysis which does not exist in such numbers as The Negro Timoteo or The Flesh Blanket. Funes did not understand me, or did not wish to understand me.
,------------. TT-" _ _ "-TT || (o\---/o) || II ( _ _ ) II ||__,--.(_(Y)_),--._|| |/ "--" ___ "--" \| / ,-" "-. \ / _,~. ,~._ \ / /(ooO )\__/( Ooo)\ \ /_,~"_((_) )____( (_))_`~._\ ( "--" "--" ) )__________________________( I_I I_I (___) (___)
___ ___ ___ ___ /__/\ / /\ /__/\ / /\ \ \:\ / /::\ \ \:\ ___ ___ / /:/ \__\:\ / /:/\:\ \ \:\ /__/\ / /\ /__/::\ ___ / /::\ / /:/~/::\ _____\__\:\ \ \:\ / /:/ \__\/\:\__ /__/\ /:/\:\ /__/:/ /:/\:\ /__/::::::::\ \ \:\ /:/ \ \:\/\ \ \:\/:/__\/ \ \:\/:/__\/ \ \:\‾‾\‾‾\/ \ \:\/:/ \__\::/ \ \::/ \ \::/ \ \:\ ‾‾‾ \ \::/ /__/:/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \__\/ \__\/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \__\/ \__\/ \__\/
___ / /\ ___ ___ / /:/ /__/\ / /\ /__/::\ \ \:\ / /:/ \__\/\:\__ \ \:\ /:/ \ \:\/\ \ \:\/:/ \__\::/ \ \::/ /__/:/ \__\/ \__\/