malloc wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 6:44 pm
According to the relevant Wikipedia articles, ancient China and India both had words for massive numbers, such as 載 zǎi for 1044 and महौघ mahaugha for 1062. Given the absence of anything like trillion-dollar corporations or high energy physics, what exactly were they using such large numbers for?
Whimsy... basically why we have names for certain high numbers, like "googol".
Furthermore, how did they derive these numbers etymologically?
Mahaugha means "great current". Parardha, used for 1017, means "higher part". It's basically conlanging.
KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 amA question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.
Indeed. The literal translations of many such numbers have no obvious connection to large numbers and using them for particular numbers sounds quite arbitrary. According to the Wiktionary article, the morpheme 載 zǎi otherwise serves as a counter word for years. Nothing about it or even alternative readings of the character suggests an exceptionally large number.
Intelligentia artificiālis dēlenda est. Idiot America | He/him
Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.
mais grand il tour, mais rapid e fort e spes caze la merda
alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pm
Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.
That's way shorter than Planck time!
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf My conlang pages Yrgidrámamintí!
alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pm
Well, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.
alice wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:50 pmWell, L. Ron Hubbard said that the operating frequency of a thetan was 10^69 Hz, so presumably it's nothing more than the desire to inspire awe with Very BIg Numbers.
True enough, although science and other developments have introduced the concrete need for very big (and indeed very small) numbers. Any language capable of functioning in the modern world needs some way of handling such numbers clearly and efficiently, otherwise its speakers will struggle with astrophysics or hyperinflation.
Intelligentia artificiālis dēlenda est. Idiot America | He/him
malloc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 4:41 pm
True enough, although science and other developments have introduced the concrete need for very big (and indeed very small) numbers. Any language capable of functioning in the modern world needs some way of handling such numbers clearly and efficiently, otherwise its speakers will struggle with astrophysics or hyperinflation.
Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 1062. Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.
zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 5:23 pm
Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 1062. Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.
It's obviously 10114. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.
KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 am
A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.
Presumably the same way ‘googol’ did — one person suggested those values and others followed.
One has to wonder whether these words truly meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. There seem to be various systems within closely related cultures.
Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:06 pmIt's obviously 10114. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.
Only true for the long scale. The short scale interprets that number as 1060 instead. Just one of the many complications that large numbers seem to entail.
Intelligentia artificiālis dēlenda est. Idiot America | He/him
KamareKitsune wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 8:51 am
A question I find more interesting is how those particular values ended up being conventionalised.
Presumably the same way ‘googol’ did — one person suggested those values and others followed.
One has to wonder whether these words truly meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. There seem to be various systems within closely related cultures.
zompist wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 5:23 pm
Well, all you need is math and a way to read it out loud. Take your example of mahaugha = 1062. Wikipedia helpfully annotates it as "hundred novemdecillion". I'd put it to you that almost no one could read that and work out what a novemdecillion is.
It's obviously 10114. Lots of us have studied Latin, and I, for one, am not dead yet.
It's not obvious that "novemdec-" is intended to be 19, or 90, or whatever. Latin 19 is ūndēvīgintī.
(people in this thread): "I don't get it. How can 'butterfly' mean a lepidoptera insect if there is no way a person could reasonably work out that it's a lepidoptera from the semantics of the word's components? And if they made up the word, how could they do that, confident that others will understand them, without a pre-existing insect naming convention? What if someone thinks it's a beetle? How could such a word arise? This is such a mystery!"
(Mark, pinching the bridge of his nose): "Someone called it a butterfly and everybody thought it was cool. That's it. There's no code."
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:16 pm
Leider spreche ich kein Lateinisch.
(Anders als im Französischen kann ich im Lateinischen nicht so etwas sagen, wie "Je ne parle pas français".)
No comma required. And it's more usual to simply say Latein - kein Latein in the first sentence, auf Latein in the second.
"I don't speak Latin" would be Latine non loquor.
