# Numbers in other languages

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 10, 2015, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676 "2015-03-10T05:42:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/41 "2015-03-14T22:26:43Z")

</div>

> [@Dr.Drake](#):
>
> Correction: three head of cattle, not three heads. At least, not in my dialect. (Same with “stone” as a unit of 14 pounds: I weigh twelve stone (I wish!), not twelve stones.)

At risk of hijacking the thread, there seems to be a limited set of units that behave like this. As it happens, I do weigh 12 stone (not “stones”), and in my dialect we would say “there was two foot of snow on the ground” but “six inch_es_” or “two metre_s_” of snow.

Thinking about it further, my grandparents would have used this uncountable form for some other units: “It’s six mile from here to Dublin”; “I need eight ounce of sugar”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/42 "2015-03-14T22:47:17Z")

</div>

> [@pulykamell](#):
>
> This is some weird grammar voodoo and is not consistent across the US. I was never taught that rule, and hearing “and” in the middle of a number was not unusual. For example, [Disney’s “101 Dalmatians,”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yc0W0vyQVw) pronounced as “one hundred and one Dalmatians.”

I was taught the rule, and always assumed the “101” = “One Hundred and One” was a way of being cute - as in not just 100 - but one more than that.

In most cases where you see someone using “101” in titles and such - it is to be cute - and I would totally pronounce it as such (using the “and”), but if it was just a fact being cited in an article - such as “So far police have confirmed 101 deaths” I would not use the “and”.

Of course I am no grammar king, but I’ve always found the “don’t use and for anything without a decimal point or fraction” to make sense as it removes any ambiguities.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/43 "2015-03-15T00:32:38Z")

</div>

> [@DataX](#):
>
> Of course I am no grammar king, but I’ve always found the “don’t use and for anything without a decimal point or fraction” to make sense as it removes any ambiguities.

Ambiguities are improbable in real life, however. In varieties of English that don’t apply this rule (where “one hundred and one” is the natural pronunciation of 101), the phrase “one hundred and two thirds” is in theory ambiguous. But in practice, would such an utterance occur in a natural setting?

Equally, as mentioned above, the American usage could give rise to ambiguity when calling out a list of numbers: {100,51} _v_ {151}.

Neither of these is a huge problem - we deal with ambiguity every day.

In any event, it’s worth pointing out that the rule is not universal, and that some people consider your way as odd as you do theirs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/44 "2015-03-15T10:39:03Z")

</div>

> [@pianodave](#):
>
> Nava: Okay, it may seem I have a bit of a problem with inconsistency. You’ve been in my other threads; I can see where you get that idea from, based on my posts. But I don’t see it as defective or wrong…I just like to know why people do things. If there is a “why” it would be interesting to know. And you’re right if you think I’d use that information to make sweeping generalizations about a culture or language based on something that in all likelihood does not mean anything. I’m stupid that way.
> 
> And I admit that I am under the mistaken impression that languages will always gravitate towards what is seemingly the most efficient or sensible.
> 
> I’m clearly not a scientist, but if there’s even a small reason for these kinds of things, who knows? Maybe it could shed light on other things.

Pianodave, you would benefit immensely from reading a recent book called _The Language Hoax_, by John McWhorter. You are interested in these matters; you have some mistaken ideas (ones you share with many other people); and you are admirably willing to learn. I’m serious – you would love this book! It is not a difficult read – it’s fun, really – and the examples he uses to prove his points are memorable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pianodave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e79b87/32.png) [@pianodave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pianodave)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/45 "2015-03-15T13:23:08Z")

</div>

> [@JKellyMap](#):
>
> Pianodave, you would benefit immensely from reading a recent book called _The Language Hoax_, by John McWhorter. You are interested in these matters; you have some mistaken ideas (ones you share with many other people); and you are admirably willing to learn. I’m serious – you would love this book! It is not a difficult read – it’s fun, really – and the examples he uses to prove his points are memorable.

I will, thank you! And then maybe I’ll be as smart as you guys 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/46 "2015-03-15T13:39:13Z")

</div>

> [@hibernicus](#):
>
> Equally, as mentioned above, the American usage could give rise to ambiguity when calling out a list of numbers: {100,51} _v_ {151}.

Thing is, despite the rule some Americans are taught, I have never heard of anyone say 100.51 as “one hundred and fifty one” or interpret “one hundred and fifty one” as “one hundred and fifty one hundredths.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/47 "2015-03-15T15:21:12Z")

</div>

I (American English speaker) would say:

100.51 = one hundred point five one  
151 = a hundred (and) fifty-one: I sometimes say and, and sometimes not. Closing my eyes and listening to myself count fast, I’m more likely to use “and” with 101–112 and 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, and 190, while the wordier numbers lose the “and.”  
151 apples = a hundred fifty-one apples  
150⅕ = a hundred fifty and one fifth

I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a problem with the ambiguity.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/48 "2015-03-15T16:51:24Z")

</div>

> [@pianodave](#):
>
> I will, thank you! And then maybe I’ll be as smart as you guys 🙂

🙂 I suspect I would be most envious of your piano playing skills, so it’s all good.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/49 "2015-03-15T17:56:03Z")

</div>

> [@pianodave](#):
>
> I will, thank you! And then maybe I’ll be as smart as you guys 🙂

I doubt we’re any smarter than you, at most we’re more used to arguing with each other…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Myglaren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Myglaren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myglaren)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/50 "2015-03-15T18:04:31Z")

</div>

> [@JKellyMap](#):
>
> Pianodave, you would benefit immensely from reading a recent book called _The Language Hoax_, by John McWhorter. You are interested in these matters; you have some mistaken ideas (ones you share with many other people); and you are admirably willing to learn. I’m serious – you would love this book! It is not a difficult read – it’s fun, really – and the examples he uses to prove his points are memorable.

Tried to order that from Amazon UK and it went very badly.  
Bought it for less on eBay though 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2015, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676/51 "2015-03-17T11:18:06Z")

</div>

> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> So the consensus of English speakers decided that the words “eleven” and “twelve” made more sense to them than “one and ten” and “two and ten.” (This may have something to do with the fact that the English had a liking for groups of twelve. Or it may not.)

I think not.

Eleven originally meant ‘one left (over)’ in Old English endleofan \< Proto-Germanic aina-lif ‘one left’. In Gothic, it’s aini-lif. If a Proto-Goth removes ten skullcups of mead from the table, and one is left over, that makes eleven in all.

Twelve goes back through Old English twelf\* to Proto-Germanic twa-lif—‘two left (over)’ which is also twalif in Gothic.  
\*Pronounced the same as Modern English _twelve_.

Both of these are consistent with a base-ten system and also suggest that “twelve” is just the final of two irregular constructions and any resemblance to a base-twelve system is coincidental. Thirteen and up became regular from there on out. (Thirteen’s only “irregularity” is its shortened first vowel, but that is explained by regular phonology. Its syntax is exactly the same as fourteen and up.)

I’d say these examples are pointing toward base-ten for Germanic languages. Dozen and gross are of French origin.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/numbers-in-other-languages/714676.md?page=2)