On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:33:22 +0900, Jens Wilkinson 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Olivier Simon 
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> Indo-European had *pods/*pedes. For sambahsa, I deviced a regular and
>> short solution: ped/peds. The "s" system is good because it is present in
>> many
>> modern European language (English, French, Spanish) and does not 
>> the word. The only problem is when the word ends with a consonant that
>> would leave the final "s" unheard. So, I use vowels for the plural in this
>> case: -
>> i for animated beings and -a for things (those vowels are widespread in
>> I.E.
>> too).
>Anotheer complication might be when a noun ends with an "s". For example,
>even if you don't use nouns ending in "s" normally, there are many cities
>that end with an "s" sound. For example, Los Angeles. If you want to say
>"there are not many Los Angeleses" in the world, would you add a vowel in
>between the two "s"s?

Sellamat Jens!

In sambahsa, the rule is that, if the previous rules are not applicable, then 
there is no ending at all. It may not be too much problematic since there are 
many inflexions in sambahsa which help to guess the number. 
Thus: "Ne sont maung Los Angeles in id mund". 
Here, the number is implied by "maung" (many) and "sont", which is the 3 
person plural form of the verb "to be" at the indicative present. 
As proper names do not necessarily follow the accentuational pattern of 
sambahsa, this exemple might look weird. 
Another example: "iris" remains unchanged at the plural. 
According to an optional rules, names of species (animals, peoples...) ending 
with a consonant of the family of "s" may even not bear any plural ending at 
Regularly, nouns of things ending in "-os" have their plural in "-sa" (it is a 
widespread category from IE in sambahsa). 

Sell nocto quantims!