​For now, a small thought about numbers:

I liked the hierarchy [the author] mentioned in a previous email:

A: Polpxaya swizawti ngal new?
With a few possible answers in order of formality:
B (formal): Tìng oeru mrra pumti
B: Tìng pumit amrr
B: pumit amrr
B (clipped/military): mrr

That's pretty much what I would come up with myself. (Of course, you could start with the pedantic "Tìng oeru swizawti amrr," where you don't pronominalize but simply repeat the noun. I'd need to think about the circumstances where that's appropriate. Maybe if someone asked you how many arrows you want, but it turns you you need some bows as well: "Tìng oeru swizawti amrr sì tskoti atsìng kop.")

Now pum is an all-purpose pronominalizer that can be used for inanimates, animates, and even people--any repeated noun. So this is perfectly possible:

A. Polpxaya taronyu kelku si tsatsraymì?
B. Pum amevol.

However, it's more elegant to use a more specialized term when possible, one that represents the class of the object(s) under discussion. In the case of taronyu, the class is simply tute. So an alternative form of the dialog is:

A. Polpxaya taronyu kelku si tsatsraymì?
B. Tute amevol.

Some other examples of class words used in place of pum:

A. Äo tsautral lu polpxaya loreyu?
B. Lu 'ewll apukap.

A. Polpxaya ikranti ngal tse'a?
B. Pxeioangit.

A. Lu polpxaya vozampasukut [a kind of tree] a rofa tsakilvan?
B. Lu utral avolaw.

I don't know how many such class words we'd be able to come up with, but it could be interesting to think about.

I think a good candidate would be 'Ak. It's one syllable and sharp-sounding, especially with the unreleased k. I can hear myself coming out with that spontaneously if I stubbed my toe or banged my head.