GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-04 > 0954591309


From: <>
Subject: Re: Wealth
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:15:09 GMT


In article <XmMD4.835$>,
"Ivor West" <> wrote:
> The American billion is what the British used to call a milliard.
> When did you last see that word? It probably went by default long
> ago. The former British billion is what Americans call a trillion
> whereas the British trillion is what Americans call a quintillion.
> Because of their impracticability, current slang calls these big
> numbers squillions. As the American billion (and only more recently
> their trillion) is capable of actualization, at least in terms of
> their financial budget, the American system is more useful. On the
> other hand, the British trillion (a million cubed) is more a concept
> than of use, and it may be some time before even the Americans start
> spending that much. That is why the British system was allowed to
> bite the dust. No need for regret. It had to go.

Not British, European. All of Europe used "milliard" down to the
1940's, and this was the language of international bodies (the League
of Nations and affiliates), although these mostly excluded the US and
were European-based.

The American / modern system isn't more useful: on the contrary,
billion = million to the power 2 (bi-), trillion = million to the power
3 (tri-) etc makes far more sense, is easier to remember and
accomodates a larger succession of quantities.

Europe's real failure was to devise a term for 1,000,000,000,000,000
(logarithmically half-way from a European billion to a European
trillion). If someone can come up with a good word for this "two-and-a-
half- illion", we can restore our numbering system to the sensible
situation prevailing in the first half of the century.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

This thread: