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
(___) (___) ___ ___ ___
___ /__/\ / /\ /__/\
/ /\ \ \:\ / /::\ \ \:\
___ ___ / /:/ \__\:\ / /:/\:\ \ \:\
/__/\ / /\ /__/::\ ___ / /::\ / /:/~/::\ _____\__\:\
\ \:\ / /:/ \__\/\:\__ /__/\ /:/\:\ /__/:/ /:/\:\ /__/::::::::\
\ \:\ /:/ \ \:\/\ \ \:\/:/__\/ \ \:\/:/__\/ \ \:\‾‾\‾‾\/
\ \:\/:/ \__\::/ \ \::/ \ \::/ \ \:\ ‾‾‾
\ \::/ /__/:/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\
\__\/ \__\/ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\
\__\/ \__\/ \__\/ ___
/ /\
___ ___ / /:/
/__/\ / /\ /__/::\
\ \:\ / /:/ \__\/\:\__
\ \:\ /:/ \ \:\/\
\ \:\/:/ \__\::/
\ \::/ /__/:/
\__\/ \__\/