This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Timor, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Timor on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East TimorWikipedia:WikiProject East TimorTemplate:WikiProject East TimorWikiProject East Timor articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The same word has been listed for both 40 and 50 in the list of numerals. Looking at the pattern, it seems as though 70 is actually 60 and so on, too. I won't edit it myself, though, since I know nothing about the language, but the system seems regular enough for this to be the case. Skomakar'n (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Being generally familiar with Austronesian basic numbers, and looking at the pattern more closely, I have concluded that it is almost certain that in fact, only the word for 40 was wrong, but the rest is correct. Therefore I was being bold and corrected it to match the pattern. While I cannot exclude hundred percent that there is a strange exception at work here, and the numbers are in fact shifted somehow, as I am, admittedly, not familiar with Uab Meto or closely related languages, either, the absence of any footnote warning of an unexpected deviation from the expected pattern justifies my conjecture, I believe. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
