Language name and location: Kopar, Papua New Guinea [Refer to Ethnologue ]
语言名称和分布地区: 科帕尔语, 巴布亚新几内亚东锡皮克省穆里克湖附近

1. ombe / mbiyona / mbatep  (both dialects) (litː ‘'one’')

2. kombar(i) (Kopar dialect), kombri (Wongan dialect) (litː ‘'two’')

3. kereməŋ (Kopar dialect),  kereməŋgo (Wongan dialect)  (litː ‘'three’')

4. sanandək (Kopar dialect), anandəko (Wongan dialect)  (litː ‘'four’')

5. tambək (litː ‘'five’')

6. tambək mbatepanda (Kopar dialect), tambək  mbatepand (Wongan dialect) 

7. ambək koɲjiranda (Kopar dialect), tambək koɲjirand (W. dialect)                       

8. tambək kereməŋganda (Kopar dialect), tambək kereməgad  (Wongan dialect)  

9. tambək sanandəkanda (Kopar dialect),  tambək sanandəkand  (Wongan dialect)  

10. aitapor (Kopar dialect), aitaporək (Wongan dialect) (litː ‘'ten’')

11. aitaporək mbatepanda  (litː ‘'eleven’')

12. aitaporək koɲjiranda 

13. aitaporək kereməŋ

14. aitaporək sanandək

15. aitaporək tambəkanda  (litː ‘'fifteen’')

16. aitaporək tambək mbatepanda

17. aitaporək ambək koɲjiranda 

18. aitaporək tambəkanda kereməŋganda 

19. aitaporək tambəkanda sanandəkanda  (litː ‘'nineteen’')

20. pwoyn  (litː ‘'male, man’')

21. pwoyn  mbatepanda 

39. pwoyn  aitaporəkanda tambəkanda sanandəkanda

40. pwoyn kompar(i) (litː ‘'two men’')

60. pwoyn kereməŋ (litː ‘'three men’')

Linguist providing data and dateː Prof. William A. Foley, Department of Linguistics, the University of Sydney, Australia. September 29, 2021
提供资料的语言学家: Prof. William A. Foley, 2021 年 9 月 29 日.

Other comments: Kopar is an endangered language spoken by approximately 20 speakers in East Sepik province, Papua New Guinea. The numeral system of Kopar is fundamentally constructed upon the anatomy of a human being.   It is built on three bases, base five, base ten and base twenty.  Numbers one to five are identical in the two dialects.  Among these, all but ‘four’ are cognate with their equivalents in Yimas, but unlike there where ‘one’ through ‘four’ inflect for noun class and only the base ‘five’ is invariable, all are invariable in Kopar.  The numeral ‘two’ can be pronounced with or without the final /i/ in the Kopar dialect.  Interesting to note that both ‘four’ and ‘five’ in the Kopar dialect have the form of adjectival verbs, with a final suffix -k.  The Yimas cognate tam ‘five’ attests to the ancestral form before this accretion. The final suffix apparent on these forms is the comitative postposition Kopar nda, Wongan nd ‘together with’, so each means ‘five together with one, two, etc’. All are transparent except for ‘seven’ in which the component for ‘two’ koɲjir is suppletive from the basic numeral for ‘two’ kompar(i).  Note that denasalization applies in the Wongan dialect form for ‘eight’, but not in the Kopar dialect. 
     The word for ‘ten’ is aitaporək in the Kopar dialect and aitapor without the -k suffix in the Wongan dialect.  This is the base for all numerals from ‘eleven’

through ‘nineteen’, simply joining ‘one’ through ‘nine’ to ‘ten’ as the base with the comitative postposition nda; I will just give Kopar dialect forms from here: 
Of course, no one used these complex numerals any longer at the time of fieldwork given the moribund state of the language, if they ever really did. Tok Pisin numerals were invariably employed.  These forms were elicited, but speakers were able to supply them without too much difficulty. 
    The numeral ‘twenty’ is also invariable and the base for still higher numerals.  

It is pwoyn, a word which means ‘male, man’ and is cognate with Murik puin, Yimas pan-mal and Kanda pon-do, all of which mean ‘male, man’.  

Hence, ‘twenty’ is a man, a whole man of ten fingers and ten toes which equal twenty.  ‘Twenty’ can be simply pwoyn, but more commonly it is expressed as 

pwoyn mbatep/mbiyona ‘one man’.  From ‘twenty-one’ to ‘thirty-nine’, the numerals are pwoyn plus ‘one, two, three, up to nineteen’: “Forty’ is pwoyn kompar(i) ‘two men’, and ‘forty-one’ to ‘fifty-nine’ would again be ‘one’ to ‘nineteen’ coordinated to that by comitative -nda, while ‘sixty’ would be pwoyn kereməŋ ‘three men’.   

Of course, no one now ever uses such higher numerals, and it is very unlikely anyone ever did, though the generative nature of the system makes them possible. In precontact times, without money and consumer goods, no one had the need to count to these levels; ‘one’ to ‘ten’ was probably more than sufficient.