Talk:Names of numbers in English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 2003 2 Belongs in wikipedia? 3 zero point zero zero two 4 Dates 5 "And" 6 Nil 7 hundreds over nine 8 Nought in mathematics 9 Rename to "Names of numbers in English" 10 Linguistics over 999,999 11 Googol and googolplex 12 Numbers greater than 1 million 13 Superscripts

[edit] 2003

Years after 2000 have no set system as of yet for expressing them.

What about "twenty oh-three"?

That's generally not used, or, at least, i've never heard it used. --Random|832 03:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've heard 2010 as "twenty-ten," 2040 as "twenty-fourty," etc. But for single digits, it's more like "two-thousand-four." LockeShocke 22:16, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Belongs in wikipedia?

This is wikibooks: stuff. --Menchi 02:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] zero point zero zero two

0.002 is "zero point zero zero two"

In England, many would say "nought point nought nought two", and likewise "nought" for any number zero.

Some recognition of the convention of saying "point nought two"/"point zero two" (i.e. dropping the number before the point - only done when it's a 0) might be made. I know it would confuse me if I'd never heard it. --Suitov, 13:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this OK? Sinuhe 13:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looking good. Thank you. --sv

I nor anyone else i have met have never used anything other than "oh" for zeros after the decimal point... And also for many other non-cardinal numbers (such as years, street addresses, room numbers, TV channel numbers) - i think this is worth mentioning. --Random|832 03:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

I don't agree with the dates section. As a Briton, I might say the twenty-ninth of January, 2004 but I'm just as likely to say January the twenty-ninth, 2004. I agree that I would not say January twenty-ninth, 2004. -- Derek Ross

Feel free to correct that then. However, I have yet to see a Briton write "January 29th". Would you actually write the date thus? If not, perhaps it should be mentioned that in speech, it can be different. (Is this page about naming written numbers or any numbers, though?)

It's true that I would generally write "29th January" but I would quite happily say the 29th of January on one occasion and January, the 29th on another, as would most Britons.

As for the the you've inserted, it isn't actually missing. It is implied (and was hence bolded in the 'how it is said' section). Since there is no real authority to perscribe English use, I suppose either version should work – it is just that I've always been taught not to write the the in front of the date. Might it be put in brackets? Sinuhe 08:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that there are two cases here. If the date stands alone (on a cheque for instance), it should certainly be written "29th January, 2004". However if it is part of a sentence, my opinion is that it should be written "I will visit you on the 29th of January, 2004". I certainly would not feel comfortable missing out "the", although I might well miss out "of". Perhaps others, like yourself, think differently. -- Derek Ross 00:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to put this in (alongside additional examples), with a bit of help from Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries (apparently, they recommend that the ordinal suffix not be appended when the month comes first). Please see if you agree with how it is now. :) Sinuhe 08:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good now, Sinuhe. Cheers. -- Derek Ross 21:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just a small note: perhaps a section could be added on centuries, i.e., nineteenth century vs. 19th century. Also, there seems to be a small (ahem!) bias towards British English. I would also like to suggest that different forms are used in different contexts. January 12th, 2006 might be used in a letter while 12 January 2006 in an academic paper. (Or is this just a reflection of my own confusion on the matter?)

[edit] "And"

When spelling out an integer number in print or saying it out loud, using the word "and" within the number is technically wrong. Denelson83 10:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not wrong at all. What you mean by 'technically', however, eludes me. Certainly this is not a page where any technical usage might be advocated, but rather one where common English regardless of context is described. It is true that Americans tend not to use the 'and', so perhaps this is what you meant. I have added a note linking the appropriate section at American and British English differences. Sinuhe 10:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, the use of "and" within a number is really universally incorrect. You'd never say "ninety and nine", would you? Denelson83 22:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I would not: but ninety is not a hundred. One cannot place the 'and' just anywhere: it stands ONLY after the hundreds if there is indeed anything after that. Thus: ninety-nine (99), one hundred (100), one hundred AND one (101), ten thosand and one (10001), ten thousand and ninety-nine (10099), ten thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine (10999). Of course this is perhaps somewhat more adhered to in British English than in American, but most certainly it is correct. Have you ever seen an authoritative source claim it wrong? Sinuhe 13:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Although I also remember learning that "and" should never be used when speaking a number in American English, this page at mathworld seems to suggest that both are acceptable. I would like a better reference source to really nail this down, though. Perhaps a good dictionary would provide a general rule? --Andrew L 16:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Technically' correct as opposed to commonly used. "Two thousand and five" is comman as is "I saw two cow's" but neither one is correct, in American usage. The next time I'm around a manual I'll find a source (or two) to cite. SpacemanSpork 22:49, 2005 Feb 22 (UTC)

What i learned in school was that the only acceptable use of "and" is to represent the decimal point... by the logic of the system i was taught, 3.14159 would be read as "three and fourteen thousand one hundred fifty-nine hundred-thousandths." However, this always struck me as an obviously prescriptivist rule. Sinuhe is correct as far as i can tell, except that i've always considered the "and"s optional. --Random|832 03:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am American, and I also remember being told not to say "a hundred and one" in elementary school, but this went against my natural instinct. I suppose that this is a rule that has emerged in the U.S. but not in Britain. I would be willing to bet that a lot of Americans still use "and" in this case. Lesgles 14:34, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

What I learned 30 years ago in American English was you ONLY use the word "and" when saying 101 "one hundred and one", 201 "two hundred and one" and all other -01 numbers (301,...1001, 1101, etc.), but then drop the "and" unless referencing decimals. Two hundred twelve, one hundred fifty, one thousand three hundred twenty two, etc. Effnyc 11:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was taught in primary school in Australian English that you put an AND after where the hundreds would be (regardless of if the hundreds exist), so like what Sinhue said before. You say six hundred million and four for 600 000 004. Thus, hundred x means hundred times x, but hundred and x means hundred plus x. Colloquially, if there's hundreds then tens, some people might sometimes drop the 'and' (so occasionally you hear two hundred twenty, but that's rare and considered (hereabouts) "wrong" as far as you could all any "and" usage, and if there's any more distance, the and is always there from what I can tell. Obviously just a case of Americans differing from the rest of us. What do they do in Canada, can anyone say? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was born and raised here in the U.S. and have lived on both coasts and in the middle, and I have never heard of any rule against using the "and." I think before 2000 I would have referred to this year as "two thousand six," but I think I say "two thousand and six" now. Until I encountered this article, I had the impression that this was the more correct usage. In other contexts I think I always use the "and:" for instance, being an amateur genealogist, I frequently talk about things that happened "a hundred and fifty years ago." (Of course, these numbers usually come out sounding more like "a-hundred-'n'-fifty.") -- Darrell M., 12.107.67.3 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nil

I, nor any american sportscaster i've heard on radio or TV, have never used "nil" to mean a score of zero... it's always been "none", or "nothing". --Random|832 03:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• In Australian football 4-0 is "four nil".
• In cricket,
  • a batsman's score of 0 would be
    • "yet to score" if not out; and
    • a "duck" if out.
  • a bowler's score or 0/33 might be
    • "no wicket for 33 runs"; or
    • "none for 33 runs".

I think it may be a Britishism. Can anyone from other English-speaking countries comment--130.164.68.211 18:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)? Marnanel 15:13, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a USA native, and I also think 'nil' is never used for scores in USA, so I've updated the sports (not 'sport' here) examples. 21 Apr 2005

To add to the debate late: in Australia "Nil" is commonly used. (Also, FWIW, "sport" is more commonly used that "sports"). Cheers, --Daveb 07:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard American sportscasters use every name under the sun for blank scores: zero, zip, zilch, nil, nada, nothing, love (even outside of tennis), squat, jack, etc. (Oops, forgot to sign.) CaptHayfever 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hundreds over nine

What about expressing numbers such as 2500 as "twenty-five hundred". I would think it is more common in American usage than saying "two thousand five hundred". It does convey a sense of approximation, though -- I might also read 2493 as "twenty-five hundred" in an informal context.

Seconded. In America at least, "fifteen hundred" is at least as common as "one thousand five hundred" though it sounds informal. This definitely deserves a mention, but hopefully someone with a better sense of this article's history and direction will do it. 130.94.161.238 09:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nought in mathematics

My mathematics professors (in the US) tend to use nought for subscripts such as x₀ ("eks nought").

[edit] Rename to "Names of numbers in English"

I'm about to move this page to "Names of numbers in English". Does anyone object? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

With no objections, I'm going to rename the page. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 19:08, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics over 999,999

What are the linguistic rules for coming up with such large numbers?

Million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion are fairly straight forward. But after that, what?

Sextillion or Hextillion? Which comes from which language, and which language is usually used? I'm assuming they derive from Greek, Latin or some other foreign language.

Septillion, Octillion, Nonillion, Decillion, then what?

Centillion (long scale, 1,000,000 to the power of 600; short scale, 1,000,000 to the power of 303)

Millillion (long scale, 1,000,000 to the power of 6000; short scale, 1,000,000 to the power of 3003)

What words and prefixes are used to assemble the names of such large numbers?

Latin prefixes are used for naming large numbers; therefore, sextillion would be the correct form.

[edit] Googol and googolplex

There's already an article which covers that sort of thing, as well as an article for each number, and each of those numbers only has one name – googol and googolplex, respectively. —Wiki Wikardo

Yes, but this article is a collection of all names given; there is no reason to exclude some when they occur somewhere else as well; much more detail can be given in the specialised articles. −Woodstone 11:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the fact remains that neither googol nor googolplex are "specialized" names. If you can find a place they belong in the article where their inclusion isn't totally jarring + out of context, by all means, go ahead. I couldn't.

P.S. I noticed there's no link to Names of large numbers under "See also," although it is in the article List of numbers, which is linked there. I think it belongs there. —Wiki Wikardo 01:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers greater than 1 million

The article says that numbers greater than 1,000,000 are "seldom named" specifically. Any sources? This seems like a silly generalization and not at all encyclopedic. Problematic. Should be removed.Dave 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It said that those numbers were seldomly used. I've removed that. Voortle 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superscripts

The use of superscripts in ordinal numbers has never been particularly common in English up to the annoying feature of Microsoft Word. So I corrected them all. 68.6.85.167 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)