Talk:Myriad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just nonsense to say that Asians have "no concept of a million": large numbers are simply named every 4 orders of magnitude, rather than every 3 orders of magnitude. --Sewing 23:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the Japanese and Korean word/concept is a borrowing from Old Chinese. They have a concept of million, but it is quite hard to recalculate between the two systems in ones mind, without resorting to writing down the numbers(and adding the decimal points in the correct position... Hope you understand what I mean...)

Before I rewrote this page, it was mostly a rant about the correct usage of the term myriad. I personally don't think this should be the centerpiece of this page, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything about it. ilan 01:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Usage 2 Yi tone 4 is 10,000,000,000,000 3 Yi4 4 "1776" in UK and US English

[edit] Usage

I'm confused by the paragraphs on usage. One sentence says: "It is often incorrectly used as a noun." But surely when it's used as a number, this can be usage as a noun. It may be that this sentence applies only to use "when unspecified". If so, it would be good to make that clearer.

On correct usage the example is given of "There is a myriad of people outside." This is presumably an example of correct usage as a number but all the previous analogies to other numbers compare it with numbers like hundred or thousand. But you wouldn't say: "There is a hundred of people outside" or "There is a thousand of people outside." Is there any evidence that it would be incorrect to say: "There are a myriad people," (using the same construction as for hundred or thousand) since this example seems to suggest that such a construction would be wrong? On the other hand, if you compare the construction with "a score of sheep" or "a gross of eggs" then the example given seems quite reasonable.

Finally, the point that "myriad" should not be pluralized needs clarification, particularly since it is pluralized in the article itself in paragraph one. It may be that this point is only intended to apply to use as a number. But we say, "thousands of starlings" and "hundreds of ships". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary quotes an example from Wellington: "their myriads of horses" and from Milton "Who... cloth'd with transcendent brightness didst outshine Myriads though bright." It may be that this point was only intended to apply to compound numbers like "ten myriad". If so, that needs to be made clearer. Adrian Robson 18:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that "There are a myriad of people outside" is incorrect is a classic example of false schoolboy pedantry trying to codify itself in Wikipedia. See M-W's explanation. Plurals are also addressed there. English usage disputes need to be moved into their own section, as well. --ToobMug 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

dictionary.com too. In fact, the first three unique Google hits for online+dictionary all give "a myriad of" examples, so I think I've presented enough evidence to just go ahead. I'll take out the incorrect text and the detail on pluralisation (which fails to stand on its own). Perhaps it can come back when it's not wrong, but I think this should link the wiktionary page and that the usage disputes should be discussed there. --ToobMug 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh .. there is nothing wrong with "a myriad of". The problem is whether the preceding word is 'is' or 'are'.

The original writer's text was indeed over-pedantic, but the point is worth making. Will see if I can craft a lighter version. (I like your sentnce move btw.) quota 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "is"/"are" debate can be had over all sorts of alternatives to myriad, so there doesn't seem much cause to address it here. I couldn't bring myself to try to correct somebody for saying "there are a truckload of people outside", even if there was only the one truck. --ToobMug 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's so badly wrong there's no point in trying to correct it! But I think if you listen carefully, you may find that people actually say "there's a truckload..." quota

[edit] Yi tone 4 is 10,000,000,000,000

Yi4 comes after wan4wan4wan4, so its 10x10,000³ Kr5t 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yi4

I'm quite positive that Yi4 (亿) means 10000^2 or 10^8. It is in the Chinese version of Wikipedia.

[edit] "1776" in UK and US English

This system works until ten tens, which requires a new description, a hundred. One similarly names numbers less than 10,000 by counting the number of hundreds plus the rest, e.g., 1776 is seventeen hundred and seventy six.

I think we may need to distinguish between British, US and other forms of English here. In the UK we would certainly use "seventeen seventy-six" colloquially for the year (though this particular year is not quite so famous in the UK!!); however, for the number itself we would more likely say "one thousand, seven hundred and seventy-six". In fact, this latter form is sometimes even used for used for years, in very formal contexts: my degree certificate says, "one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine," for 1999, for example, whereas I know that formal documents in the US say things like "in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-nine".

There's also the matter of when to omit the "and" in US English (though this is getting off-topic) - in the UK we would always say "two hundred and six", "two thousand and six", etc, rather than "two hundred six", "two thousand six". In the US, "seventeen hundred and seventy six" seems to have an "and", while "two thousand six" usually does not. E.g. if you look at the signing of Presidential proclamations, there was an "and" in the 1990s, but not in 2001-2006 (though this might just be related to a change of President?!)

--Mtford 21:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)