Scríobh David Friedland:
would appear to an en-gb reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks
and to an en-us reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 billion gold marks
This is clumsy, but manageable, when there's only en-us and en-gb to worry about. Unfortunately, there are more than two dialects of English.
For instance, in Australian English, the word "milliard" is unknown (I had to go and look it up to see what you were on about). The sentence in en-au would be "a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 thousand million gold marks." (a thousand million being a 1 followed by nine zeroes). I've no idea what sort of dialectical differences exist in other English dialects, but I assume that they're there also.
I mean, it probably could be done, but coming up with alternatives for en-us, en-gb, en-au, en-ie, en-za, etc etc, would just be a massive pain, and lets be honest, who has time for that sort of work. The system works fine as it is now (although putting the number in decimal form afterwards would probably help, and is my policy when there might be confusion caused).
- Craig Franklin
------------------- Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Hi,
Le Wednesday 6 October 2004 11:55, Craig Franklin a écrit :
Scríobh David Friedland:
would appear to an en-gb reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks
and to an en-us reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 billion gold marks
This is clumsy, but manageable, when there's only en-us and en-gb to worry about. Unfortunately, there are more than two dialects of English.
For instance, in Australian English, the word "milliard" is unknown (I had to go and look it up to see what you were on about). The sentence in en-au would be "a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 thousand million gold marks." (a thousand million being a 1 followed by nine zeroes). I've no idea what sort of dialectical differences exist in other English dialects, but I assume that they're there also.
Yes, and in India, you would write "22.6 thousand crores gold marks" or "22,600 crores gold marks". So not very simple to accomodate. ;)
I mean, it probably could be done, but coming up with alternatives for en-us, en-gb, en-au, en-ie, en-za, etc etc, would just be a massive pain, and lets be honest, who has time for that sort of work. The system works fine as it is now (although putting the number in decimal form afterwards would probably help, and is my policy when there might be confusion caused).
This debate is interesting culturally, I am learning a lot, but I don't think it's going towards a usuable solution.
- Craig Franklin
Yann
Having lived and worked in both the UK and Ireland, I dare say that IMHO the use of "milliard" is now (thank the Gods) relatively scarce and diminishing in (probably any form of) English. It's an entirely different story however when it comes to other languages -- e.g. in German, "Milliarde" is the ''only'' correct way.
(NB: use a non-proportional font here)
So common English usage: compares to German usage:
million Million billion Milliarde trillion Billion quadrillion Billiarde quintillion Trillion etc. etc.
IMO the "milliard" convention is absolute rubbish, because it effectively breaks the decimal system and I'm glad it's in decline in the English speaking world. I wish the same were true for its use in other languages as well.
</2eurocents>
On 6 Oct 2004, at 11:55, Craig Franklin wrote:
Scríobh David Friedland:
would appear to an en-gb reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks
and to an en-us reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 billion gold marks
This is clumsy, but manageable, when there's only en-us and en-gb to worry about. Unfortunately, there are more than two dialects of English.
For instance, in Australian English, the word "milliard" is unknown (I had to go and look it up to see what you were on about). The sentence in en-au would be "a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 thousand million gold marks." (a thousand million being a 1 followed by nine zeroes). I've no idea what sort of dialectical differences exist in other English dialects, but I assume that they're there also.
I mean, it probably could be done, but coming up with alternatives for en-us, en-gb, en-au, en-ie, en-za, etc etc, would just be a massive pain, and lets be honest, who has time for that sort of work. The system works fine as it is now (although putting the number in decimal form afterwards would probably help, and is my policy when there might be confusion caused).
- Craig Franklin
Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:23:14 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
IMO the "milliard" convention is absolute rubbish, because it effectively breaks the decimal system and I'm glad it's in decline in the English speaking world. I wish the same were true for its use in other languages as well.
OK, we're drifting off-topic now, but I just wanted to say that I completely disagree. There's nothing "decimal" about million->billion->trillion going up in factors of a thousand rather than of a million, it's completely arbitrary. And etymologically, a billion being a million million makes sense: the "bi-" means "two", and it has twice as many zeros; similarly, a European trillion has three times as many zeros as a million, hence "tri-". What are there three of in an American trillion?
It's a moot point, because the American version seems to have become the accepted standard in the English-speaking world (better than just remaining ambiguous for eternity, I suppose), but the old way is far more logical. [I've actually heard it suggested that the change was so that people could call themselves "billionaires", but I'm not sure how much truth there can be in that]
On 6 Oct 2004, at 16:03, Rowan Collins wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:23:14 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
IMO the "milliard" convention is absolute rubbish, because it effectively breaks the decimal system
I completely disagree. There's nothing "decimal" about million->billion->trillion going up in factors of a thousand rather than of a million, it's completely arbitrary.
My beef with the "milliard"-convention (and why I think it "breaks" the decimal system) is not its number of zeros. If the "milliard"-convention were only to use:
(NB: use a non-proportional font here)
milliard 10^9 1,000,000,000 billiard 10^15 1,000,000,000,000,000 trilliard 10^21 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.
then hey, that's logical and "kinda decimal". I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Likewise, if people were only to use:
million 10^6 1,000,000 billion 10^12 1,000,000,000,000 trillion 10^18 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.
then I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
What '''drives me NUTS''' however is the "traditional" usage, whereby you have:
million 10^6 1,000,000 milliard 10^9 1,000,000,000 billion 10^12 1,000,000,000,000 billiard 10^15 1,000,000,000,000,000 trillion 10^18 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 trilliard 10^21 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.
-- this effectively uses a "duodecimal" system as it were.
((In [[List_of_numbers#English_names_for_powers_of_10]], this latter system is described as the "Continental European" convention, with the "Traditional British" usage being a much more sane alternative (cf. above).))
Sadly, the said "traditional" (I mean "Continental European") usage is what's in use in in the country I'm now again (temporarily) living in -- Germany. IMHO no sane person could actually settle on such a system. Well, at least in Germany that system is ''unanimously'' used, so thank heaven for small favours!
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:39:21 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
What '''drives me NUTS''' however is the "traditional" usage, whereby you have:
million 10^6 1,000,000 milliard 10^9 1,000,000,000 billion 10^12 1,000,000,000,000 billiard 10^15 1,000,000,000,000,000 trillion 10^18 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 trilliard 10^21 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc.
-- this effectively uses a "duodecimal" system as it were.
I guess I've always thought of it as million -> billion -> trillion as adding 6 noughts at a time, and the rest just kind of "filling in" in between. It's still not really a decimal vs something else distinction, but I see what you mean. It's more like Roman numerals than anything else, with the X and V, C and L, M and D, etc
IMO the "milliard" convention is absolute rubbish, because it effectively breaks the decimal system and I'm glad it's in decline in the English speaking world. I wish the same were true for its use in other languages as well.
OK, we're drifting off-topic now, but I just wanted to say that I completely disagree. There's nothing "decimal" about million->billion->trillion going up in factors of a thousand rather than of a million, it's completely arbitrary. And etymologically, a billion being a million million makes sense: the "bi-" means "two", and it has twice as many zeros; similarly, a European trillion has three times as many zeros as a million, hence "tri-". What are there three of in an American trillion?
Multiples of a thousand. As you say, both conventions are mathematically arbitrary.
I would, however, like to point out that this "etymology" business is nonsensse. The word "billion" (and the convention thereof) comes to us [English speakers] from French, whose system we [Americans] continue to use despite the fact that France itself switched systems fairly recently in history (and for quite sensible reasons). In short, we have kept the original definition, while Europe has standardized on another. I can't say that I have any problem whatever with that.
I'd also like to note that virtually all Americans are completely oblivious to the difference, and to the best of whose knowledge a milliard is some kind of waterfowl. I was no exception, given the fact that my foreign associations have always comprised mostly scientists and academics, who by and large agree with my personal preference: to have a name for each additional placeholder.
It's a moot point, because the American version seems to have become the accepted standard in the English-speaking world (better than just remaining ambiguous for eternity, I suppose), but the old way is far more logical. [I've actually heard it suggested that the change was so that people could call themselves "billionaires", but I'm not sure how much truth there can be in that]
I was recently somewhat surprised to find that even BBC World Service broadcasts have adopted the "American" convention for numbers, albeit with an occasional parenthetical clarification. That said, a clear divide on the issue obviously remains, although in our particular case the intrinsic problems can be avoided by enumerating large sums.
(Of course, this brings up the issue of commas vs. spaces as placeholders, but that's another can of worms.)
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
In message 001401c4ab8a$af7cba40$69971bd3@equinox, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net writes
Scríobh David Friedland:
would appear to an en-gb reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks
and to an en-us reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 billion gold marks
This is clumsy, but manageable, when there's only en-us and en-gb to worry about. Unfortunately, there are more than two dialects of English.
For instance, in Australian English, the word "milliard" is unknown (I had to go and look it up to see what you were on about). The sentence in en-au would be "a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 thousand million gold marks." (a thousand million being a 1 followed by nine zeroes). I've no idea what sort of dialectical differences exist in other English dialects, but I assume that they're there also.
I mean, it probably could be done, but coming up with alternatives for en-us, en-gb, en-au, en-ie, en-za, etc etc, would just be a massive pain, and lets be honest, who has time for that sort of work. The system works fine as it is now (although putting the number in decimal form afterwards would probably help, and is my policy when there might be confusion caused).
I agree. "Thousand million" is absolutely unambiguous. I would say that "milliard" has not been used in the UK for at least the last 30-40 years, and would not be understood by most readers.
Arwel Parry wrote:
I agree. "Thousand million" is absolutely unambiguous. I would say that "milliard" has not been used in the UK for at least the last 30-40 years, and would not be understood by most readers.
"Thousand million" sounds a bit odd though. If I saw "thousand million", I would expect to see a footnote explaining why this odd choice of wording was used instead of "billion", or perhaps a wikilink to [[thousand million]] explaining the various terms used for that quantity.
-Mark
Kaixo!
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:41AM -0400, Delirium wrote:
"Thousand million" sounds a bit odd though. If I saw "thousand million", I would expect to see a footnote explaining why this odd choice of wording was used instead of "billion",
Because a billion is not a thousand million but a thousand thousand million maybe :-)
The US English usage of "billion" and "trillion" is archaic (the same holds for most of the measuring units used in the USA); of all the languages I know all use the modern meanings of billion and trillion, that is, 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 respectively.
Now I came accostumed to it, but when I first read things like "a billion dollar" I was shocked to read about a so huge amount of money; well, it was actually a thousand times smaller amount than it was written; now I know that US newpapers always grossly exagerate ands that big amounts have to be shrinked a thousand times to have the real amount :-)
Pablo Saratxaga wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:41AM -0400, Delirium wrote:
"Thousand million" sounds a bit odd though. If I saw "thousand million", I would expect to see a footnote explaining why this odd choice of wording was used instead of "billion",
Because a billion is not a thousand million but a thousand thousand million maybe :-)
[Sigh] That's what this whole discussion has been about. Which one your particular view on linguistic history prefers is irrelevant (I could make all sorts of arguments about why the English language is illogical in thousands of instances); the point is that in US English "billion" means "a thousand million" unambiguously, whereas in some other dialects of English it doesn't.
In US English, a billion is simply a thousand million. Furthermore, it's the only of writing a thousand million that doesn't sound odd. "A thousand million" is the only other correct way ("a milliard" is not US English), and it sounds odd in US English. Thus there should be some explanation of what's going on for the confused reader who is not aware of these differences, such as a hyperlink on [[thousand million]].
-Mark
Portuguese uses "mil(1e3) -> milhão(1e6) -> bilhão(1e9) -> trilhão(1e12) -> ..."
e2m
Em Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:57:59 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org escreveu:
Pablo Saratxaga wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:41AM -0400, Delirium wrote:
"Thousand million" sounds a bit odd though. If I saw "thousand million", I would expect to see a footnote explaining why this odd choice of wording was used instead of "billion",
Because a billion is not a thousand million but a thousand thousand million maybe :-)
[Sigh] That's what this whole discussion has been about. Which one your particular view on linguistic history prefers is irrelevant (I could make all sorts of arguments about why the English language is illogical in thousands of instances); the point is that in US English "billion" means "a thousand million" unambiguously, whereas in some other dialects of English it doesn't.
In US English, a billion is simply a thousand million. Furthermore, it's the only of writing a thousand million that doesn't sound odd. "A thousand million" is the only other correct way ("a milliard" is not US English), and it sounds odd in US English. Thus there should be some explanation of what's going on for the confused reader who is not aware of these differences, such as a hyperlink on [[thousand million]].
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I am disappointed... Seeing the title, I expected a fundraising bringing us a milliard of dollars. Sigh
Craig Franklin a écrit:
Scríobh David Friedland:
would appear to an en-gb reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 milliard gold marks
and to an en-us reader as
a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 billion gold marks
This is clumsy, but manageable, when there's only en-us and en-gb to worry about. Unfortunately, there are more than two dialects of English.
For instance, in Australian English, the word "milliard" is unknown (I had to go and look it up to see what you were on about). The sentence in en-au would be "a plan was formulated by which Germany was to pay 226 thousand million gold marks." (a thousand million being a 1 followed by nine zeroes). I've no idea what sort of dialectical differences exist in other English dialects, but I assume that they're there also.
I mean, it probably could be done, but coming up with alternatives for en-us, en-gb, en-au, en-ie, en-za, etc etc, would just be a massive pain, and lets be honest, who has time for that sort of work. The system works fine as it is now (although putting the number in decimal form afterwards would probably help, and is my policy when there might be confusion caused).
- Craig Franklin
Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Is "million, milliard" the sole French usage? Or do you use "million, billion" as well?
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 6 Oct 2004, at 15:32, Anthere wrote:
I am disappointed... Seeing the title, I expected a fundraising bringing us a milliard of dollars. Sigh
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org