Proto-Tallic had the plural suffix *-mi. It shifted towards a greater plural in Talmit, but was retained in Kymna. A preceding a changes to o, hence pyða ’river’, pyðomi ’rivers’, sasa ’egg’, sasomi ’eggs’ and so on.
In Proto-Tallic *te(n) was an element denoting a value on a scale, *te(n)mne was an independent word for the abstract notion ’strong, intense’, *te(n)we for the abstract notion of ’weak’ (*parus-te(n)mne ’great height’, *parus-te(n)we ’small height’). This was retained in Talmit, but as the difference between count and mass nouns became blurry in Kymna and the -mne/-we distinction dissolved, -te was also attatched to count nouns and became a second plural suffix. This development also might have been influenced by *dan-te(n)mne ’large number → many’.
In Proto-Tallic, collections of count nouns or volumes of mass nouns could be expressed in two ways. The prefix *ṇ- properly denoted a certain volume of a mass noun, or an area where a number of count nouns is situated (the same prefix was also applied to verbs adding a sense of prolonged duration in Kymna), while the suffix *-mai, probably derived from plural *-mi, properly denoted a certain set of count nouns. Thus *ṇ- usually referred to something randomly shaped or without a clear border, while *-mai referred to something purposefully arranged and ordered.
In Talmit, -mi became a greater plural, while an- < *ṇ- filled the place of the ordinary plural; and *-mai was extended to collections of all kinds. In Kymna, *-mai became -me and fell together with -mne after r, l, being reinterpreted as an abstract noun suffix (although it retains its older meaning in some fossilized forms). Therefore, a- < *ṇ- began to denote collections of all kind.
So for example:
The paucal ending *-jo ’some, few, a couple’ is productive in Talmit, but not in Kymna, although it can be traced in some words, e.g. ledza ’dew’ < *ples-jo (cf. T. ples ’drop’).