Re: [OT Why GB English is different] Re: Mozilla firefox en-gb

[cr <cr@orcon.net.nz>]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 19:39, William Ballard wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:18:16AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:57:39AM +0100, Graham wrote:
> > > No, the ex-GB billion is a billion.  The US billion is really a
> > > thousand million (and is misnamed)
> >
> > It depends on whether you view the series as geometric or exponential.
>
> Just realized our way isn't strictly geometric either: it is geometric
> by tens up to one thousand, and then by thousands therafter.  But you
> can argue that is sound because we write digits by ones up to ten and
> then by tens therafter.
>
> If you use the british definition, then 1,222,333,444,555 would be
> (let's see if I get it right):
>
> One billion, two hundred twenty two thousand million, three hundred
> thirty three million, four hundred forty four thousand, five hundred
> fifty-five.

No.   One billion, two hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and 
thirty-three million, four hundred and forty-four thousand, five hundred and 
fifty-five.

Note the hyphens and the 'and' s.   Just another way English differs from 
American  ;)

> Is that something a Brit would find eloquent?  Our way is a little bit
> more metric.

Metric?   As in the metric system?  What's that got to do with it?

To me, the English way makes more sense simply because:
1 billion = 1 million million   (two of 'em - 'bi')
1 trillion = 1 million million million   (three of 'em - 'tri')
1 quadrillion =1 million million million million  (four of 'em - 'quad')
and so on - 
whereas I can see no logic at all in an American 'trillion'

cr