As difficult as it may be to construe, the existence of a number system is not universal, that is, some derivative ethnic groups have not included nomenclature of the number system in their languages. For example, numberless hunter-gatherer groups living in the Amazon / Amazonia group together concepts of numbers rather than the numbers themselves, a practice partly owing to harsh requirements of the terrains. This lexical set includes such lexis as ‘many,’ ‘several,’ “a few,” “some,” or none.’

Yet, many cultures globally do prediacte their larger cultural and social lifeworlds on number systems, a predicateion which is complexified by discourses such as Conficuainism, capitalism, and so forth. Similarly, while exposed to texts, we non discrimantly forge comparisons to time, age, measurements of beauty and social standards, intelligence measurements, and so forth, thus continuously counting and measuring. These habitualized practices, which are embodied markedly in cultures, then affect the extent to which we think and to which we frame our lives. 

This number inclusion is a relatively new practice in the human historical scheme of things, while the 7,000 languages in existence at the present time vary significantly in their respective use of number systems, numbers themselves, counting, and what’s more, the ideology of the number.

Cultures without numbers, or with only one or two precise numbers, include the Munduruku and Pirahã groups in the Amazonia region, as are others such as groups in Nicaragua, who at times omit number systems.

Observing commmunities globally, in the lives of anumeric peoples, despite the fact that there are benefoits to an anumeric system, the monitoring of amounts, levels, and other types of quanity may prove to be problematic, and the keeping track of necessary information can become obfuscatory.

The observation of this and other facts can expose several hypotheses, such as the fact that the lack of a numerical system in a community may impede the extent to which the group distinguishes quantitatively.

The very fact that the numerical system is not applicable to every single language globally, despite the functionlity of every single language, suggests that a numerical system is not required inorder to secure the functionalism of a language.