Appendix talk:English numerals

A good resource for Italian translations of number names can be found at http://www.locuta.com/num.html -- Paul G 18:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All of the numbers on this page (cardinals and ordinals) can be used as adjectives and nouns. The ordinals already have adjective and noun sections, but these are needed for the cardinals too. Some of the translations of the cardinals might be for adjectives, some for nouns and some for both - these are all in one place at the moment and would need to be separated out. -- Paul G 19:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

neologisms
A huge number (no pun intended) of these names are actually neologisms and should not be taken seriously. --Ixfd64 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This appendix needs to be cleaned up. — Vildricianus 19:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be cleaned up, because guapamongaplex is a real infinity scraper and Jonathan Bowers (born 1969) seriously made them up.

Not to be deleted.
This Appendix should not be deleted. It is very good to me.

This page is about numbers. I love math. Why do you have to delete this appendix page. Can you change the title? I bet you can.- Bobby Yoo

Googolplexplex
Perhaps can also be added? — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This has since been done. -- Beland (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why they aren't nouns ...
I was hoping when I came here from a link in a discussion that maybe this page would have a good detailed description of why Numerals are not Nouns on this site. Unfortunately, not a word. Whether here or over at Entry layout/POS headers, I would hope someone could spell it out so those of us who have been around for a few decades would understand the difference without having to dig through the Talk pages. -Mike (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a section on parts of speech. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The Value of The Numeral of Trecentillion
According to the section (Here is the version-specified link), the numeral of Trecentillion has multiple values because it can be interpreted as Tre-Cent-illion (103rd illion number) or Trecent-illion (300th illion number). By the way, this occurs in the Modified Conway-Wechsler system, too.

In order to prevent the collion, we have no choice but to change the spell of either or both of the 103rd or the 300th. There are some ideas, such as introducing the term of Tres-Centillion for the 103rd or that of Tricentillion for the 300th.

I propose to use Tres-Centillion for the 103rd while keeping the 300th Trecentillion because it was thel term very close to the original version of this kind of system for the 103rd illion number. We can see it even in the version before Miakinen proposing to use Quin- instead of Quinqua- for the value of five in Units.

I want to know the other editors' opinion about how we should change the current content while using some references.--Meauk (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

the figure I propose to use
Here is the figure I propose for us to use.
 * (*) Note: when it is immediately before a component marked with S or X, "tre" increases to "tres" and "se" to "ses" or "sex" as appropriate. Similarly "septe" and "nove" increase to "septem" and "novem" or "septen" and "noven" immediately before components marked with M or N.
 * (**) quin is changed from original quinqua, as explained above.

My personal opinion
When speaking, we can differentiate between Tres-cent-illion for the 103rd illion number and Trecent-illion for the 300th by using either of the phrases, With S or Without S.