"a hundred" and "hundreds of"

[a***@gmail.com]

Hello！

I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have settled in
America.

According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are shown;
1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.

I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hundreds
of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been the
speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if "a
hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

Cordially,

LP

[Harrison Hill]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hello！
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have settled in
America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are shown;
1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hundreds
of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been the
speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if "a
hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hello！
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

Post by a***@gmail.com
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

Post by a***@gmail.com
America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

Post by a***@gmail.com
1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

Post by a***@gmail.com
of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

Post by a***@gmail.com
speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

Post by a***@gmail.com
hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:35:13 GMT, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

[]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Harrison Hill
It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

What if there's thousands? Would that be Hundreds and Thousands?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundreds_and_thousands

[Lewis]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 12:35:13 GMT, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

[]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Harrison Hill
It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

What if there's thousands? Would that be Hundreds and Thousands?

Perhaps, or millions, or countless, or billions.

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundreds_and_thousands

I like that phrase to describe Sprinkles.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

The OP opined this:

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".

We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
The OP's sentence is of the form:

There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

...and is therefore weird. If athel believes it to be standard
English, then remind me never to get stuck in a lift with him.
I'd rather be stuck in a lift with navi and a dozen other.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

? French is negligible, except right along the eastern Canadian border,
especially in the Maine woods.

Clearly the sentence is excerpted from a longer discussion, which has
presumably already mentioned Spanish.

[CDB]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French? The

? French is negligible, except right along the eastern Canadian
border, especially in the Maine woods.
Clearly the sentence is excerpted from a longer discussion, which
has presumably already mentioned Spanish.

Yabbut, "At various times". In my father's youth there was a thriving
community of Franco-Americans in Winooski (now part of Burlington,
Vermont), many of them, like his family, having been in the US for
generations and still speaking French at home and in church, and often
in the local shops.

My paternal great-grandfather, Thomas Bellemare, was a farmer in South
Dakota. I wonder sometimes if he had fled there after the failure of
the Red River rebellion. The timing (c. 1870) looks about right for his
son's childhood, since I gather that the generations passed more quickly
in those days.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French? The

? French is negligible, except right along the eastern Canadian
border, especially in the Maine woods.
Clearly the sentence is excerpted from a longer discussion, which
has presumably already mentioned Spanish.

Yabbut, "At various times". In my father's youth there was a thriving
community of Franco-Americans in Winooski (now part of Burlington,
Vermont), many of them, like his family, having been in the US for
generations and still speaking French at home and in church, and often
in the local shops.
My paternal great-grandfather, Thomas Bellemare, was a farmer in South
Dakota. I wonder sometimes if he had fled there after the failure of
the Red River rebellion. The timing (c. 1870) looks about right for his
son's childhood, since I gather that the generations passed more quickly
in those days.

In my part of London is a prosperous German-speaking suburb.
The reason? Captured German pilots were incarcerated in Latchmere
House (I think) at Ham - which is close to Richmond Park.

Many of them decided to stay put. Their German School thrives, and
they are much into Polo, I believe.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French? The

? French is negligible, except right along the eastern Canadian
border, especially in the Maine woods.
Clearly the sentence is excerpted from a longer discussion, which
has presumably already mentioned Spanish.

Yabbut, "At various times". In my father's youth there was a thriving
community of Franco-Americans in Winooski (now part of Burlington,
Vermont), many of them, like his family, having been in the US for
generations and still speaking French at home and in church, and often
in the local shops.
My paternal great-grandfather, Thomas Bellemare, was a farmer in South
Dakota. I wonder sometimes if he had fled there after the failure of
the Red River rebellion. The timing (c. 1870) looks about right for his
son's childhood, since I gather that the generations passed more quickly
in those days.

In my part of London is a prosperous German-speaking suburb.
The reason? Captured German pilots were incarcerated in Latchmere
House (I think) at Ham - which is close to Richmond Park.
Many of them decided to stay put. Their German School thrives, and
they are much into Polo, I believe.

You must be mistaken. I remembered reading about MI5, and Wikip agrees.

Jan

========================================================================
During the Second World War Latchmere House was used as a detention and
interrogation centre (known as Camp 020) for enemy agents captured by
MI5. Many members of the British Union of Fascists were held at
Latchmere House during this period.[2] They included the environmental
pioneer Jorian Jenks. (Wikipedia)
========================================================================

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2018-07-27 09:36:36 +0000, Harrison Hill said:


[ … ]

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a context.
Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not necessary,

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country, the
USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English, who have
recently become fearful for the future of their language. In the USA,
the hundreds of indigenous languages have mostly been extinguished or
reduced to insignificance by the spread of English. Throughout American
history, however, immigrants have been pouring into the USA from all
over the world. At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German,
Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a hundred other
languages, have settled in America. These immigrant languages have
sometimes survived for several generations in particular communities.
More often, however, the children of the immigrants have rapidly
switched to English, in the process known to Americans as the ‘melting
pot’. But in the last couple of decades the influx of Spanish-speaking
immigrants has reached floodlike proportions. Millions of
Spanish-speakers have poured into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto
Rico, from Cuba, from all over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of
New York, Florida and the American southwest are predominantly
Spanish-speaking, and Spanish is often the first language in such
varied spheres as schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with
such a dramatic rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking
Americans have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws
declaring English to be their official language, and there is growing
pressure on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Post by Harrison Hill
If athel believes it to be standard
English,

Nobody else agrees you: why single me out?

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a context.
Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not necessary,

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country, the
USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English, who have
recently become fearful for the future of their language. In the USA,
the hundreds of indigenous languages have mostly been extinguished or
reduced to insignificance by the spread of English. Throughout American
history, however, immigrants have been pouring into the USA from all
over the world. At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German,
Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a hundred other
languages, have settled in America. These immigrant languages have
sometimes survived for several generations in particular communities.
More often, however, the children of the immigrants have rapidly
switched to English, in the process known to Americans as the ‘melting
pot’. But in the last couple of decades the influx of Spanish-speaking
immigrants has reached floodlike proportions. Millions of
Spanish-speakers have poured into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto
Rico, from Cuba, from all over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of
New York, Florida and the American southwest are predominantly
Spanish-speaking, and Spanish is often the first language in such
varied spheres as schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with
such a dramatic rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking
Americans have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws
declaring English to be their official language, and there is growing
pressure on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Post by Harrison Hill
If athel believes it to be standard
English,

Nobody else agrees you: why single me out?

Because you are the only one to say: "Nobody else agrees you"?
That isn't my English and it disagrees with me.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a
context.> Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not
necessary,> because with a little effort you could have found it for

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country, the>

USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English, who have>
recently become fearful for the future of their language. In the

USA,> > the hundreds of indigenous languages have mostly been
extinguished or> > reduced to insignificance by the spread of English.
Throughout American> > history, however, immigrants have been pouring
into the USA from all> > over the world. At various times, huge numbers
of speakers of German,> > Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and a hundred other> > languages, have settled in America.
These immigrant languages have> > sometimes survived for several
generations in particular communities.> > More often, however, the
children of the immigrants have rapidly> > switched to English, in the
process known to Americans as the ‘melting> > pot’. But in the last
couple of decades the influx of Spanish-speaking> > immigrants has
reached floodlike proportions. Millions of> > Spanish-speakers have
poured into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto> > Rico, from Cuba, from
all over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of> > New York, Florida
and the American southwest are predominantly> > Spanish-speaking, and
Spanish is often the first language in such> > varied spheres as
schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with> > such a dramatic
rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking> > Americans
have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws> > declaring
English to be their official language, and there is growing> > pressure
on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Post by Harrison Hill
If athel believes it to be standard
English,

Nobody else agrees you: why single me out?

Because you are the only one to say: "Nobody else agrees you"?

Idiot. Have you never heard of a typo?

Post by Harrison Hill
That isn't my English and it disagrees with me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a context.
Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not necessary,

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country, the
USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English, who have
recently become fearful for the future of their language. In the USA,
the hundreds of indigenous languages have mostly been extinguished or
reduced to insignificance by the spread of English. Throughout American
history, however, immigrants have been pouring into the USA from all
over the world. At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German,
Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a hundred other
languages, have settled in America. These immigrant languages have
sometimes survived for several generations in particular communities.
More often, however, the children of the immigrants have rapidly
switched to English, in the process known to Americans as the ‘melting
pot’. But in the last couple of decades the influx of Spanish-speaking
immigrants has reached floodlike proportions. Millions of
Spanish-speakers have poured into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto
Rico, from Cuba, from all over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of
New York, Florida and the American southwest are predominantly
Spanish-speaking, and Spanish is often the first language in such
varied spheres as schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with
such a dramatic rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking
Americans have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws
declaring English to be their official language, and there is growing
pressure on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Even you didn't give the source! It's surprising that Larry, an American
then living in England, would lump Puerto Ricans in with "immigrants."

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Harrison Hill
If athel believes it to be standard
English,

Nobody else agrees you: why single me out?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a
context.> Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not
necessary,> because with a little effort you could have found it for

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country, the>

USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English, who have>
recently become fearful for the future of their language. In the

USA,> > the hundreds of indigenous languages have mostly been
extinguished or> > reduced to insignificance by the spread of English.
Throughout American> > history, however, immigrants have been pouring
into the USA from all> > over the world. At various times, huge numbers
of speakers of German,> > Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese,
Vietnamese, and a hundred other> > languages, have settled in America.
These immigrant languages have> > sometimes survived for several
generations in particular communities.> > More often, however, the
children of the immigrants have rapidly> > switched to English, in the
process known to Americans as the ‘melting> > pot’. But in the last
couple of decades the influx of Spanish-speaking> > immigrants has
reached floodlike proportions. Millions of> > Spanish-speakers have
poured into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto> > Rico, from Cuba, from
all over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of> > New York, Florida
and the American southwest are predominantly> > Spanish-speaking, and
Spanish is often the first language in such> > varied spheres as
schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with> > such a dramatic
rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking> > Americans
have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws> > declaring
English to be their official language, and there is growing> > pressure
on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Even you didn't give the source!

Yes, it's from pages 90-91 of Language: the Basics, Routledge, New York
and London.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's surprising that Larry, an Americanthen living in England, would
lump Puerto Ricans in with "immigrants."

I agree, it's surprising, as I'm sure that he will have understood the
status of Puerto Rico better than Mr Trump does. However, in West Side
Story, for example, the Puerto Ricans are shown very much as if they
were immigrants, and one can readily imagine that someone who knew
perfectly well the reality might make a careless statement. I expect
that during the Depression many people in California regarded the Okies
as immigrants.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Harrison Hill
If athel believes it to be standard
English,

Nobody else agrees you: why single me out?

Something I didn't notice yesterday is that 'Arrison has clumsily
deflected the discussion away from what the OP asked, which was what "a
hundred" meant, and 'Arrison's "non-standard" could only be understood
in that light. Nothing about whether Spanish should have been included
in the statement, which is what he now claims to have found weird,
without bothering to consider the context, and, weird or not, there is
no way that not mentioning Spanish can be described as non-standard.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Harrison Hill
"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian,  Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in  America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.
...and is therefore weird.

Bollocks. It's only weird if you ignore the fact that it had a
context.> Peter has suggest a plausible one, but actually that's not
necessary,> because with a little effort you could have found it for

Post by Harrison Hill
Strangely enough, in the world’s largest English-speaking country,
the> > USA, it is the speakers of the dominant language, English,
who have> > recently become fearful for the future of their
language. In the USA,> > the hundreds of indigenous languages have
mostly been extinguished or> > reduced to insignificance by the
spread of English. Throughout American> > history, however,
immigrants have been pouring into the USA from all> > over the
world. At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German,> >
Italian, Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a hundred
other> > languages, have settled in America. These immigrant
languages have> > sometimes survived for several generations in
particular communities.> > More often, however, the children of the
immigrants have rapidly> > switched to English, in the process known
to Americans as the ‘melting> > pot’. But in the last couple of
decades the influx of Spanish-speaking> > immigrants has reached
floodlike proportions. Millions of> > Spanish-speakers have poured
into the USA from Mexico, from Puerto> > Rico, from Cuba, from all
over Latin America. Today, sizeable chunks of> > New York, Florida
and the American southwest are predominantly> > Spanish-speaking,
and Spanish is often the first language in such> > varied spheres as
schooling, hospitals and local politics. Faced with> > such a
dramatic rise in the influence of Spanish, many English-speaking> >
Americans have reacted defensively. Several states have passed laws>

Post by Harrison Hill
declaring English to be their official language, and there is

growing> > pressure on Washington to do the same for the whole country.

Do you still think Larry Trask ignored Spanish?

Even you didn't give the source!

Yes, it's from pages 90-91 of Language: the Basics, Routledge, New York
and London.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
 It's surprising that Larry, an Americanthen living in England, would
lump Puerto Ricans in with "immigrants."

I agree, it's surprising, as I'm sure that he will have understood the
status of Puerto Rico better than Mr Trump does. However, in West Side
Story, for example, the Puerto Ricans are shown very much as if they
were immigrants, and one can readily imagine that someone who knew
perfectly well the reality might make a careless statement. I expect
that during the Depression many people in California regarded the Okies
as immigrants.

...

Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is

c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants from
Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.

I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

The objection I can see to Trask's inclusion of Puerto Rico in "Millions
of Spanish-speakers have poured /into the USA/ from Mexico, from Puerto
Rico, from Cuba, from all over Latin America." However, for some
purposes such as international sports, Puerto Rico is separate from the
U.S.A., and Puerto Rican immigration has certainly been part of the
increase of Spanish in the 50 states.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants
from Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.
I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

Another difference I've observed: in Australia, probably everyone knows
the word "immigrant", but almost nobody uses it. We say "migrant"
instead, so when we see "immigrant" used in AmE for the same meaning,
it's slightly disconcerting.

I'm not sure where "emigrant" is most used.

[bill van]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants
from Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.
I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

Another difference I've observed: in Australia, probably everyone knows
the word "immigrant", but almost nobody uses it. We say "migrant"
instead, so when we see "immigrant" used in AmE for the same meaning,
it's slightly disconcerting.
I'm not sure where "emigrant" is most used.

My understanding of current Canadian English usage is that an emigrant
is moving from somewhere, an immigrant is moving to somewhere, and a
migrant is moving.

Migrants are a huge factor in in history as she is unfolding now.

bill

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by bill van

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants
from Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.
I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

Another difference I've observed: in Australia, probably everyone knows
the word "immigrant", but almost nobody uses it. We say "migrant"
instead, so when we see "immigrant" used in AmE for the same meaning,
it's slightly disconcerting.
I'm not sure where "emigrant" is most used.

My understanding of current Canadian English usage is that an emigrant
is moving from somewhere, an immigrant is moving to somewhere, and a
migrant is moving.

Good for current Canadian English usage: that has always been the
distinction between the three words. However, there may be a problem
for Syrians in Greece, or Hondurans in Mexico. They're not trying to
settle in Greece or Mexico, but are on their way. They've already
emigrated, but they haven't yet immigrated. In the French news,
however, they often use "migrants" for people who've arrived at their
destinations.

Post by bill van
Migrants are a huge factor in in history as she is unfolding now.
bill

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:18:09 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by bill van

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants
from Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.
I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

Another difference I've observed: in Australia, probably everyone knows
the word "immigrant", but almost nobody uses it. We say "migrant"
instead, so when we see "immigrant" used in AmE for the same meaning,
it's slightly disconcerting.
I'm not sure where "emigrant" is most used.

My understanding of current Canadian English usage is that an emigrant
is moving from somewhere, an immigrant is moving to somewhere, and a
migrant is moving.

Good for current Canadian English usage: that has always been the
distinction between the three words. However, there may be a problem
for Syrians in Greece, or Hondurans in Mexico. They're not trying to
settle in Greece or Mexico, but are on their way. They've already
emigrated, but they haven't yet immigrated.

Perhaps we could call them "transmigrants". I have just invented that
word, however someone seems to have got there before me.
OED:

transmigrant, adj. and n.
2.
a. In modern use: A person passing through a country or place on his
way from the country from which he is an emigrant to that in which
he will be an immigrant. Used spec. in reference to the Aliens Act
of 1905: see quot.

1894...
1906 Aliens Act 1905: Regulations 21 in Parl. Papers Cd. 2879
XCVI. 729 Transmigrants. That is, alien passengers (other than
first-class passengers) who have in their possession prepaid
through tickets, and in respect of whom security has been given
that they will proceed to places outside the United Kingdom.
1910 Daily News 26 Feb. 4/2 Practically no aliens now arrive in
this country for the purpose of settling here; they are nearly all
transmigrants proceeding via England from the Continent to
America.

{This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1914).}

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In the French news,
however, they often use "migrants" for people who've arrived at their
destinations.

Post by bill van
Migrants are a huge factor in in history as she is unfolding now.
bill

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by bill van
Migrants are a huge factor in in history as she is unfolding now.

She?

Donna è mobile?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants
from Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.
I hadn't realized that the word is American in origin.

Another difference I've observed: in Australia, probably everyone knows
the word "immigrant", but almost nobody uses it. We say "migrant"
instead, so when we see "immigrant" used in AmE for the same meaning,
it's slightly disconcerting.
I'm not sure where "emigrant" is most used.

My mother bought me the 1961 World Book Encyclopedia (intended for kids up
to junior high school level) (because her best friend was a saleswoman for
it, which meant she got the most expensive of the three available bindings)
and it has long articles "Emigration" and "Immigration." Unfortunately,
neither article defined the distinction!

About 40 years later, I was asked to contribute new articles on the letters
of the alphabet, and on "Alphabet" and "Writing Systems" (which was renamed
from "Writing," because they'd had two articles by that name, the other one
being about what we call "creative writing").

It ain't easy to explain novel concepts in 1000 words at a junior-high-
school level. The editor was most helpful.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants from
Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.

I don't think that's necessarily an example. What the Continental
Congress declared in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris granted in 1783,
was independence for Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the rest. And
the Articles of Confederation in 1777 sayd nothing about citizenship.

So in "about 1787" it might well have been reasonable to speak of
citizens of Massachusetts and citizens of Connecticut. However,
I have no idea whether this actually was common practice at the time.

The phrase "citizen of the United States" *is* used in the Constitution,
but the Constitution wasn't effective until 1788 (according to the
Constitution) or 1790 (according to the Articles of Confederation).

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants from
Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.

I don't think that's necessarily an example. What the Continental
Congress declared in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris granted in 1783,
was independence for Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the rest. And
the Articles of Confederation in 1777 sayd nothing about citizenship.
So in "about 1787" it might well have been reasonable to speak of
citizens of Massachusetts and citizens of Connecticut. However,
I have no idea whether this actually was common practice at the time.
The phrase "citizen of the United States" *is* used in the Constitution,
but the Constitution wasn't effective until 1788 (according to the
Constitution) or 1790 (according to the Articles of Confederation).

"Jus soli" - except Native Americans were not granted American
citizenship until 1924.

In Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Supreme Court had held that an Indian
born on tribal lands, and subject to tribal law, was not a citizen of
the United States unless Congress made them citizens “under explicit
provisions of treaty or statute to that effect.”

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants from
Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.

I don't think that's necessarily an example. What the Continental
Congress declared in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris granted in 1783,
was independence for Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the rest. And
the Articles of Confederation in 1777 sayd nothing about citizenship.
So in "about 1787" it might well have been reasonable to speak of
citizens of Massachusetts and citizens of Connecticut. However,
I have no idea whether this actually was common practice at the time.
The phrase "citizen of the United States" *is* used in the Constitution,
but the Constitution wasn't effective until 1788 (according to the
Constitution) or 1790 (according to the Articles of Confederation).

I hadn't thought about that. Maybe I should have said that "immigrant"
isn't always restricted to people considered foreigners, which I don't
think Massachusettsans were considered elsewhere in New England.

Anyway, here's a later American example:

a1817 T. Dwight /Trav. New-Eng. & N.-Y./ (1821) II. 232 Immigrants
are crowding to it from New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode-Island.

"It" is a tract in Maine "between the rivers Ameriscoggin and Penobscot".

Oddly enough, the only edition of that book at GB, which is from 1823,
has "Emigrants", not "Immigrants".

https://books.google.com/books?id=XENCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA218

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Jerry Friedman
Yes, "immigrant" is not always restricted to people of different
citizenship. In fact, the first citation in the OED is
c1787 R. King in /Life & Corr./ (1894) I. 296 The immigrants from
Massachusetts, who settled on Connecticut River.

I don't think that's necessarily an example. What the Continental
Congress declared in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris granted in 1783,
was independence for Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the rest. And
the Articles of Confederation in 1777 sayd nothing about citizenship.
So in "about 1787" it might well have been reasonable to speak of
citizens of Massachusetts and citizens of Connecticut. However,
I have no idea whether this actually was common practice at the time.
The phrase "citizen of the United States" *is* used in the Constitution,
but the Constitution wasn't effective until 1788 (according to the
Constitution) or 1790 (according to the Articles of Confederation).

I hadn't thought about that. Maybe I should have said that "immigrant"
isn't always restricted to people considered foreigners, which I don't
think Massachusettsans were considered elsewhere in New England.
a1817 T. Dwight /Trav. New-Eng. & N.-Y./ (1821) II. 232 Immigrants
are crowding to it from New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode-Island.
"It" is a tract in Maine "between the rivers Ameriscoggin and Penobscot".
Oddly enough, the only edition of that book at GB, which is from 1823,
has "Emigrants", not "Immigrants".
https://books.google.com/books?id=XENCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA218

Maine was split off from Massachusetts to become a free state in 1820 so
that Missouri could be admitted as a slave state.

Dwight was perhaps writing before that happened -- is the book maybe a
collection of newspaper pieces? -- and the subsequent printing made an
adjustment to keep up.

[Lewis]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

[Richard Yates]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

I thought _maybe_ Screwie Lewie was counting the Milky Way to get to "tens
of thousand" -- though one might wonder about the syntax of that "number."

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

Not around here.

Have you been enjoying your lunar eclipse?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

I thought _maybe_ Screwie Lewie was counting the Milky Way to get to "tens
of thousand" -- though one might wonder about the syntax of that "number."

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

Not around here.
Have you been enjoying your lunar eclipse?

Alas no: see upthread.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

I thought _maybe_ Screwie Lewie was counting the Milky Way to get to "tens
of thousand" -- though one might wonder about the syntax of that "number."

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

Not around here.
Have you been enjoying your lunar eclipse?

Completely hidden by cloud, or barely visible through clouds
in much of Western Europe,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Have you been enjoying your lunar eclipse?

Completely hidden by cloud, or barely visible through clouds in much
of Western Europe,

For us too. The sky has been clear for ages, but on Friday night the
clouds heard about the eclipse and rapidly filled the sky.

I did briefly see the half-eclipsed moon at about 5 am Saturday, in a
gap between clouds, but there was so little hope of seeing anything more
that we went back to bed.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

I thought _maybe_ Screwie Lewie was counting the Milky Way to get to "tens
of thousand" -- though one might wonder about the syntax of that "number."

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

Not around here.
Have you been enjoying your lunar eclipse?

Covered in cloud the whole way through! Oh well, only a few months to
the next one.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird> >>>

Post by a***@gmail.com
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,> >billions of
trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the chances
are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

During the eclipse last night it was more like 5 where we were.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:32:48 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 07:28:14 UTC+1,

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the
following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it
means "a very large number of things or people" and the
following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one
hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more
than five thousand languages in the world, those who have
settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or
"an unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird> >>>

notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of
the contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from
Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,> >billions
of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the
chances are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

During the eclipse last night it was more like 5 where we were.

Looxury; we saw nowt but clouds.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:32:48 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 07:28:14 UTC+1,

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it
means "a very large number of things or people" and the
following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more
than five thousand languages in the world, those who have
settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or
"an unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird> >>>

notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of
the contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from
Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,> >billions
of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the
chances are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

During the eclipse last night it was more like 5 where we were.

Looxury; we saw nowt but clouds.

Yes, but you live, I suspect, in a place where clouds are the norm. I
don't: we've had at least 25 cloudless nights in the past month, but
last night wasn't one of them. When the clouds dispersed to the point
where we could see the moon the eclipse was over, but we could see the
moon as red and faint -- lit by light that was passing through dirty
earthly air.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:32:48 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 07:28:14 UTC+1,

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it
means "a very large number of things or people" and the
following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more
than five thousand languages in the world, those who have
settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or
"an unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird> >>>

notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of
the contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from
Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,> >billions
of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the
chances are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

During the eclipse last night it was more like 5 where we were.

Looxury; we saw nowt but clouds.

That's the UK weather for you, innit. Six weeks of nary a cloud in the
sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything unusual to look
at up there, in they roll.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 06:32:48 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

On 2018-07-25 09:54:28 +0200, Harrison Hill

On Wednesday, 25 July 2018 07:28:14 UTC+1,

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the
following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages,
have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it
means "a very large number of things or people" and the
following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one
hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more
than five thousand languages in the world, those who have
settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus
I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or
"an unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird> >>>

notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of
the contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from
Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,> >billions
of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

And given the light pollution most of us have to deal with the
chances are it is in reality 1000 on a good day!

During the eclipse last night it was more like 5 where we were.

Looxury; we saw nowt but clouds.

That's the UK weather for you, innit. Six weeks of nary a cloud in the
sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything unusual to
look at up there, in they roll.

Curiously, people who were in South Devon for the solar eclipse of 1999
tell me that it was the opposite then. (But of course, the sun has much
effect on the weather than the moon does.) Lots of clouds up until the
eclipse was due to begin; then it cleared up for the eclipse; then they
came back.

Post by Katy Jennison
L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur
Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois
Avant après Mars régner par bonheur.

Like everything Nostradamus wrote the words are pretty obscure, but the
date is unambiguous.

[the Omrud]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

That's the UK weather for you, innit.  Six weeks of nary a cloud in
the sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything unusual
to look at up there, in they roll.

Curiously, people who were in South Devon for the solar eclipse of 1999
tell me that it was the opposite then. (But of course, the sun has much
effect on the weather than the moon does.) Lots of clouds up until the
eclipse was due to begin; then it cleared up for the eclipse; then they
came back.

We were in Hungary in August 1999, where the weather was perfect for
eclipse-viewing. I'm sure we heard that Cornwall had mostly missed the
eclipse because of cloud.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

That's the UK weather for you, innit.  Six weeks of nary a cloud in the
sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything unusual to
look at up there, in they roll.

Curiously, people who were in South Devon for the solar eclipse of 1999
tell me that it was the opposite then. (But of course, the sun has much
effect on the weather than the moon does.) Lots of clouds up until the
eclipse was due to begin; then it cleared up for the eclipse; then they
came back.

We were in Hungary in August 1999, where the weather was perfect for
eclipse-viewing. I'm sure we heard that Cornwall had mostly missed the
eclipse because of cloud.

Cornwall was expected to be best, but there was a small bit of Devon
that had it -- a small bit that included where my sisters and I just
sold our house.

I was talking to someone yesterday who had very good condition for
seeing the 1999 eclipse in northern France.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by the Omrud

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison
That's the UK weather for you, innit. Six weeks of nary a cloud in the
sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything unusual to
look at up there, in they roll.

Curiously, people who were in South Devon for the solar eclipse of 1999
tell me that it was the opposite then. (But of course, the sun has much
effect on the weather than the moon does.) Lots of clouds up until the
eclipse was due to begin; then it cleared up for the eclipse; then they
came back.

We were in Hungary in August 1999, where the weather was perfect for
eclipse-viewing. I'm sure we heard that Cornwall had mostly missed the
eclipse because of cloud.

Cornwall was expected to be best, but there was a small bit of Devon
that had it -- a small bit that included where my sisters and I just
sold our house.
I was talking to someone yesterday who had very good condition for
seeing the 1999 eclipse in northern France.

Went with friends to near Rouan for the occasion.
Not great, but good enough.
Heard that one of the best places was on the French Channel coast.
Being on a cliff they could see the shadow approaching over the water,

Jan

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by the Omrud

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Katy Jennison
That's the UK weather for you, innit. Six weeks of nary a cloud
in the sky, let alone any rain, but as soon as there's anything
unusual to look at up there, in they roll.

Curiously, people who were in South Devon for the solar eclipse of
1999 tell me that it was the opposite then. (But of course, the
sun has much effect on the weather than the moon does.) Lots of
clouds up until the eclipse was due to begin; then it cleared up
for the eclipse; then they came back.

We were in Hungary in August 1999, where the weather was perfect
for eclipse-viewing. I'm sure we heard that Cornwall had mostly
missed the eclipse because of cloud.

Cornwall was expected to be best, but there was a small bit of Devon
that had it -- a small bit that included where my sisters and I just
sold our house.
I was talking to someone yesterday who had very good condition for
seeing the 1999 eclipse in northern France.

Went with friends to near Rouan for the occasion.
Not great, but good enough.
Heard that one of the best places was on the French Channel coast.
Being on a cliff they could see the shadow approaching over the water,
Jan

Northern France; on the line shi^w camping surleferme (sp?) went up a
hill - cloud. Back at CSLF, fine. still, quite an experience.

[Lewis]

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.

2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

I mean, I can't see that many, my eyes are poor.

There are also satellites up there, and occasionally a lot of
shooting stars.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.
I mean, I can't see that many, my eyes are poor.
There are also satellites up there, and occasionally a lot of
shooting stars.

I think we have very different definitions of 'visible'.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.

I'd love to see that catalogue.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Lewis
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.
I mean, I can't see that many, my eyes are poor.
There are also satellites up there, and occasionally a lot of
shooting stars.

I think we have very different definitions of 'visible'.

There are just over 9000 stars of magnitude 6.5 or brighter, and 6.5 is
probably below the limit of visibility (usually given as 6.0).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Star_Catalogue

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

Screwie Lewie is claiming to be able to resolve the stars comprising the
Milky Way?

Post by Lewis
I mean, I can't see that many, my eyes are poor.

Oh, he thinks others can. Why, then, is it called the "Milky Way" and not
"the band with tens of thousands of stars"?

Post by Lewis
There are also satellites up there, and occasionally a lot of
shooting stars.

Yes, I remember watching Echo I travel all across the sky one night in
NYC. It was just a giant gasbag of silvery foil and about as bright as
Venus.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following

sentence ; > > At various times, huge numbers of speakers of
German, Italian, Hungarian,

Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages,

have sett led in > America. > > According to Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English, it means > "a very large number of things or
people" and the following examples are shown; > 1. a hundred;
They've had this argument a hundred times before.

2. hundreds of something; He's had hundreds of girlfriends. > > I

wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and
"hund reds > of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a
hundred" can sometimes > mean "hundreds of". Since there are said
to be more than five thousand > languages in the world, those who
have settled in America must have been the > speakers of "hundreds
or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if "a > hundred" is
literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is

unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.

Must be nonsense.

Post by Lewis
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

You can see the Milky Way,
and you can know there are millions of stars there,
but you can't resolve them.
In fact, the Milky Way being just a mass of stars rather than a cloud
was one of the great discoveries of the telescopic age. (guess who?)

Post by Lewis
I mean, I can't see that many, my eyes are poor.
There are also satellites up there, and occasionally a lot of
shooting stars.

Perseids coming up soon,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

You can see the Milky Way, and you can know there are millions of
stars there, but you can't resolve them.

Yes, but along the edges of that cloud there's a high density of
discrete points, much higher than in any other direction. This is
perhaps more obvious in the Southern Hemisphere, where the centre of the
galaxy is usually high in the night sky.

In fact, the Milky Way being just a mass of stars rather than a
cloud was one of the great discoveries of the telescopic age. (guess
who?)

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer have
tackled. There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so
it is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
close to "tens of thousands". Look at some sources. Here's one:

http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

[Lewis]

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

Because I've seen the MilkY Way on a clear night far from light
pollution.

Post by Richard Yates
It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer have
tackled.

The trouble, as we found out after 9/11, is tehre is a massive mount of
interference in the atmosphere caused by airplanes, so what you
generally see now is not representative of what you saw 30 years ago,
must less 300 years ago.

Post by Richard Yates
There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so
it is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

I did see that, but it is a site I've never heard of and cites no real
numbers. Like, "number of starts at this magnitude".

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:54:26 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:45:53 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:42:31 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard.

And there have been hundreds of examples of his weird notions.

"At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America".
We single out Vietnamese and Hungarian? No Spanish or French?

Because the Spanish and French predate the US? (We bought most of the
contiguous US from France, and the rest we stole/bought from Mexico).

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

Because I've seen the MilkY Way on a clear night far from light
pollution.

So have I. And at a high elevation. However, I did not count them.

BTW, every visible star in the sky is in the Milky Way galaxy.

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer have
tackled.

The trouble, as we found out after 9/11, is tehre is a massive mount of
interference in the atmosphere caused by airplanes, so what you
generally see now is not representative of what you saw 30 years ago,
must less 300 years ago.

Post by Richard Yates
There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so
it is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

I did see that, but it is a site I've never heard of and cites no real
numbers. Like, "number of starts at this magnitude".

I am sure you could find some.

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:52:54 -0700, Richard Yates

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:54:26 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis
That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000 visible (and
that is for the full sky - at any point on earth there will be half
that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

Because I've seen the MilkY Way on a clear night far from light
pollution.

So have I. And at a high elevation. However, I did not count them.
BTW, every visible star in the sky is in the Milky Way galaxy.

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer have
tackled.

The trouble, as we found out after 9/11, is tehre is a massive mount of
interference in the atmosphere caused by airplanes, so what you
generally see now is not representative of what you saw 30 years ago,
must less 300 years ago.

Post by Richard Yates
There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so
it is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

I did see that, but it is a site I've never heard of and cites no real
numbers. Like, "number of starts at this magnitude".

Here ya go:

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/Cat?V/50

It is the Bright Star Catalog, the complete list of magnitude 6.5 and
brighter stars. (Magnitude 6.5 and brighter are those that are visible
without magnification.) It was first compiled in 1930. I contains
about 9,000 stars. Less than half would be visible at any one time and
location.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

BTW, every visible star in the sky is in the Milky Way galaxy.

Two different meanings of "Milky Way". Lewis appears to be referring
to the band of light which can be seen on a dark night when looking
along the central plane of the galaxy. However, the stars making up
this band are not individually visible, only their collective light is,
and therefore they are not normally counted when enumerating stars
visible at night.

[CDB]

[billions and billions, I tell you]

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
Sure seems like it, but, no. Estimates are about 5,000
visible (and that is for the full sky - at any point on earth
there will be half that).

The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see
(absent light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky
given ideal conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to
recall something about one of the ancient pre-telescope
civilizations having cataloged about 30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that
visible in just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

Because I've seen the MilkY Way on a clear night far from light
pollution.

So have I. And at a high elevation. However, I did not count them.
BTW, every visible star in the sky is in the Milky Way galaxy.

ObAUE: I guess you mean "separately visible"? There's a galaxy in
Andromeda, I hear, and I remember a couple of oddly persistent clouds in
the night sky of Argentina. Took me two or three days to realise what
they were.

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer
have tackled.

The trouble, as we found out after 9/11, is tehre is a massive
mount of interference in the atmosphere caused by airplanes, so
what you generally see now is not representative of what you saw 30
years ago, must less 300 years ago.

Post by Richard Yates
There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so it
is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

I did see that, but it is a site I've never heard of and cites no real

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis
numbers. Like, "number of starts at this magnitude".

I am sure you could find some.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
There are huge catalogs of stars with measured magnitudes so
it is not by any means just a guess. Estimates do vary but none are
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night

I did see that, but it is a site I've never heard of and cites no real
numbers. Like, "number of starts at this magnitude".

Perhaps someone could direct Screwie Lewie to the site I posted, with its
exact number of stars of magnitude 6.5 and brighter.

The figure is just over 9,090.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:59:15 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

[snip]

Post by Lewis

Post by Richard Yates

Post by Lewis
The number I've heard since I was a kid is that one can see (absent
light pollution) about 30,000 stars in the night sky given ideal
conditions and good (trained) eyes. And I seem to recall something about
one of the ancient pre-telescope civilizations having cataloged about
30,000.
2500 cannot possibly be right since there are more than that visible in
just the Milky Way.

And you know that how?

Because I've seen the MilkY Way on a clear night far from light
pollution.

Post by Richard Yates
It's a question that the people who are best informed to answer have
tackled.

The trouble, as we found out after 9/11, is tehre is a massive mount of
interference in the atmosphere caused by airplanes, so what you
generally see now is not representative of what you saw 30 years ago,
must less 300 years ago.

So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

Hint: you can also admit to being wrong about it,

Jan

[Richard Tobin]

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

Aristotle reported in his "Meteorology":

(2) Anaxagoras, Democritus, and their schools say that the milky way
is the light of certain stars. For, they say, when the sun passes
below the earth some of the stars are hidden from it. Now the light
of those on which the sun shines is invisible, being obscured by the
of the sun. But the milky way is the peculiar light of those stars
which are shaded by the earth from the sun's rays.

-- Richard

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

(2) Anaxagoras, Democritus, and their schools say that the milky way
is the light of certain stars. For, they say, when the sun passes
below the earth some of the stars are hidden from it. Now the light
of those on which the sun shines is invisible, being obscured by the
of the sun. But the milky way is the peculiar light of those stars
which are shaded by the earth from the sun's rays.

Yes, a curious and mysterious passage, that no one understands.
All commentors are puzzled by it.
The most likely interpretation is that Aristotle
was confusing passages by others about the galaxy
with those about noctilucent clouds,
but that still leaves the passage puzzling.

Jan

[RHDraney]

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

Why assume that? Apples* had been falling off trees in front of
someones for millennia before somebody figured there might be
some reason for it.

* Other fruits are available.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

Why assume that? Apples* had been falling off trees in front of
someones for millennia before somebody figured there might be
some reason for it.

But of course there is a reason.
Apples strive towards there natural place,
which is the centre of the universe,
so the centre of the earth,

Jan

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Why assume that? Apples* had been falling off trees in front of
someones for millennia before somebody figured there might be
some reason for it.

Philosophers had theories about why things fell long before Newton.

Newton's great achievement was to show how one set of laws could
describe both apples falling and planets in orbit.

-- Richard

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

You are sure, but don't have a reference for it.
If you were right someone would have said to Galileo,
we told you so, when he discovered the nature of the Milky Way.
The fact is that no one did. Galileo was credited with the discovery.

There is indeed a small galactic latitude effect, [1]
but to 'see' it you need to make star catalogs,
and do statistics, so you are in the 20th century.
It is not obvious when you just look at the sky.
The ancients just saw constellations all over the sky,

Jan

[1] The sun happens to be very close to the central plane of the galaxy
at present. (~60 Ly) The galaxy is about 1000 lightyear thick. Most
naked eye visible stars are less than 1000 Ly awy. Same comments for
seeing less stars looking 'out' than towards galactic centre.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

You are sure, but don't have a reference for it.
If you were right someone would have said to Galileo,
we told you so, when he discovered the nature of the Milky Way.
The fact is that no one did. Galileo was credited with the discovery.
There is indeed a small galactic latitude effect, [1]
but to 'see' it you need to make star catalogs,
and do statistics, so you are in the 20th century.
It is not obvious when you just look at the sky.
The ancients just saw constellations all over the sky,

Tycho Brahe made some sort of naked-eye catalogue -- the one that made it
possible for Kepler to calculate the ellipticity of the planets' orbits.

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] The sun happens to be very close to the central plane of the galaxy
at present. (~60 Ly) The galaxy is about 1000 lightyear thick. Most
naked eye visible stars are less than 1000 Ly awy. Same comments for
seeing less stars looking 'out' than towards galactic centre.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

You are sure, but don't have a reference for it.
If you were right someone would have said to Galileo,
we told you so, when he discovered the nature of the Milky Way.
The fact is that no one did. Galileo was credited with the discovery.
There is indeed a small galactic latitude effect, [1]
but to 'see' it you need to make star catalogs,
and do statistics, so you are in the 20th century.
It is not obvious when you just look at the sky.
The ancients just saw constellations all over the sky,

Tycho Brahe made some sort of naked-eye catalogue -- the one that made it
possible for Kepler to calculate the ellipticity of the planets' orbits.

Not 'some sort of', a very good one,
the best that naked eye astronomy, aided by large instruments, can do.
So did Ptolemy btw, less accurately of course,
and the Babylonians before him.
Stars are the reference points for observing where the planets are,
Without a good star catalog you can't do anything.

That also gives you the limits of their star catalogs.
They were not systematic catalogs of all visible stars,
but catalogs of about a thousand useful ones.

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by RHDraney

Post by J. J. Lodder
So please explain why nobody saw the Milky Way as a collection of stars,
despite thousands of years of looking through pollution-free skies,
until Galileo pointed his telescope at it.

I'm sure observers before Galileo noticed that the density of
separately-visible stars was greater in the parts of the sky closer to
the band of the Milky Way...surely someone made the obvious inference....r

You are sure, but don't have a reference for it.
If you were right someone would have said to Galileo,
we told you so, when he discovered the nature of the Milky Way.
The fact is that no one did. Galileo was credited with the discovery.
There is indeed a small galactic latitude effect, [1]
but to 'see' it you need to make star catalogs,
and do statistics, so you are in the 20th century.
It is not obvious when you just look at the sky.
The ancients just saw constellations all over the sky,

Tycho Brahe made some sort of naked-eye catalogue -- the one that made it
possible for Kepler to calculate the ellipticity of the planets' orbits.

Not 'some sort of', a very good one,

"good" isn't a "sort"?

I don't know whether any copy of it has survived?

Post by J. J. Lodder
the best that naked eye astronomy, aided by large instruments, can do.
So did Ptolemy btw, less accurately of course,
and the Babylonians before him.

Really? I'd be most interested in a reference to a Babylonian catalogue
of the visible stars. Please provide the citation to the publication of
the relevant tablets.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Stars are the reference points for observing where the planets are,
Without a good star catalog you can't do anything.

Gee, could that be why I mentioned Kepler?

Post by J. J. Lodder
That also gives you the limits of their star catalogs.
They were not systematic catalogs of all visible stars,
but catalogs of about a thousand useful ones.

Ok, show me the Babylonian tablets that catalogue "about a thousand useful
stars."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
[ … ]
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

The moon, alas, not among them last night, as there was too much cloud
until the eclipse was over. However, we did see it all red.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill
There are many celestial bodies in the sky; Neptune, the moon,
Halley's comet, and a thousand other.

That seems like a silly thing to say. There are at least tens of
thousand visible without magnification, and of course,
billions of trillions actually out there.

The moon, alas, not among them last night, as there was too much cloud
until the eclipse was over. However, we did see it all red.

So it was at least within the penumbra, if not the umbra, no?

I think they said we'll get to enjoy the January one. Even more likelihood
of overcast.

[soup]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

There is always 'hunners' (ScotsENG) to mean 'an unspecified number but
a lot'.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by a***@gmail.com

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence

;

At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have sett

led in

America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are

shown;

1. a hundred; They've had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He's had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hund

reds

of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been

the

speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if

"a

hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard, and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds" or "an
unspecified large number" of languages.

Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to mean
"many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

Jan

[CDB]

[coming soon: billions and billions]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to
mean "many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times. Their
canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number of
weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found outside
of mythical narrative? (I'm not asking you to research it, just
wondering if you know of any off-hand.)

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by CDB
[coming soon: billions and billions]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to
mean "many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times. Their
canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number of
weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found outside
of mythical narrative? (I'm not asking you to research it, just
wondering if you know of any off-hand.)

That might make sense if there was ever a mention of forty weeks
but it's usually forty days and as delighted as mothers would no doubt
be if they could get it over in that time I don't think we're ever likely
to see it! There's also a few 40 years, by the way (don't bear thinking
about!) As to why it's 40 the only reason we can be absolutely certain
of is that it had to be something. It does seem to be a usage particular
to the Hebrews/Israelites. There are similar references in the Qur'an
but, as with much of the book, that is probably best explained as a
direct borrowing from the Bible.

[Mark Brader]

Post by CDB

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times. Their
canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number of
weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found outside
of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

[CDB]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the
usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the culture of
ancient Israel and Judea.

After forty days and forty nights, the ark gave birth to new life. OTOH,
the sign for "forty" is the letter "mem" (says WP) and the ark spent
those mem days and nights afloat on the mayim.

No, not that Mayim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayim_Mayim

Christ (or possibly Jesus) spent forty days in the wilderness before he
returned victorious from his struggle with Satan.

Those are the two that occurred to me offhand; no doubt there are
others. There are certain numbers that have a habit of hanging around
in religious or mythical stories, like three, nine, and seven. Maybe,
some millennia ago, "forty" was one of them.

*******************************************
Yes, Wp has got a whole lot more:

The number 40 is used in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and other Middle
Eastern traditions to represent a large, approximate number, similar to
"umpteen".

Judaism[edit]
In the Hebrew Bible, forty is often used for time periods, forty days or
forty years, which separate "two distinct epochs".[8]

Rain fell for "forty days and forty nights" during the Flood. (Genesis 7:4)

Spies were sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (promised to the
children of Israel) for "forty days." (Numbers 13:2,25)

The Hebrew people lived in the lands outside of the promised land for
"forty years". This period of years represents the time it takes for a
new generation to arise. (Numbers 32:13)

Several Jewish leaders and kings are said to have ruled for "forty
years", that is, a generation. Examples include Eli (1 Samuel 4:18),
Saul (Acts 13:21), David (2 Samuel 5:4), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:42).

Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for forty days before
David defeated him. (1 Samuel 17:16)

Moses spent three consecutive periods of "forty days and forty nights"
on Mount Sinai:
He went up on the seventh day of Sivan, after God gave the Torah to the
Jewish people, in order to learn the Torah from God, and came down on
the seventeenth day of Tammuz, when he saw the Jews worshiping the
Golden Calf and broke the tablets. (Deuteronomy 9:11)

He went up on the eighteenth day of Tammuz to beg forgiveness for the
people's sin and came down without God's atonement on the twenty-ninth
day of Av. (Deuteronomy 9:25)

He went up on the first day of Elul and came down on the tenth day of
Tishrei, the first Yom Kippur, with God's atonement. (Deuteronomy 10:10)
A mikvah consists of 40 se'ah (approximately 200 gallons) of water

The prophet Elijah had to walk 40 days and 40 nights before arriving to
mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:8)

40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin
(Deuteronomy 25:3), though in actual practice only 39 lashes were
administered.[9]

Biblical verse Numbers 14:33-34 alludes to the same with ties to the
prophecy in The Book of Daniel. "For forty years--one year for each of
the forty days you explored the land--you will suffer for your sins and
know what it is like to have me against you.'"

One of the prerequisites for a man to study Kabbalah is that he is forty
years old.

"The registering of these men was carried on cruelly, zealously,
assiduously, from the rising of the sun to its going down, and was not
brought to an end in forty days" - (3 Maccabees 4:15)

Christianity[edit]

Christianity similarly uses forty to designate important time periods.[8]

Before his temptation, Jesus fasted "forty days and forty nights" in the
Judean desert. (Matthew 4:2, Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2)

Forty days was the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the
ascension of Jesus. (Acts 1:3)

According to Stephen, Moses' life is divided into three 40-year
segments, separated by his growing to adulthood, fleeing from Egypt, and
his return to lead his people out. (Acts 7:23,30,36)

[Peter T. Daniels]

[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the
usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the culture of
ancient Israel and Judea.
After forty days and forty nights, the ark gave birth to new life. OTOH,
the sign for "forty" is the letter "mem" (says WP) and the ark spent
those mem days and nights afloat on the mayim.
No, not that Mayim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayim_Mayim

Use of the letters as numerals postdates the biblical text. There are no
examples in Scripture.

Post by CDB
Christ (or possibly Jesus) spent forty days in the wilderness before he
returned victorious from his struggle with Satan.
Those are the two that occurred to me offhand; no doubt there are
others. There are certain numbers that have a habit of hanging around
in religious or mythical stories, like three, nine, and seven. Maybe,
some millennia ago, "forty" was one of them.
*******************************************
The number 40 is used in Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and other Middle
Eastern traditions to represent a large, approximate number, similar to
"umpteen".
Judaism[edit]
In the Hebrew Bible, forty is often used for time periods, forty days or
forty years, which separate "two distinct epochs".[8]
Rain fell for "forty days and forty nights" during the Flood. (Genesis 7:4)
Spies were sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (promised to the
children of Israel) for "forty days." (Numbers 13:2,25)
The Hebrew people lived in the lands outside of the promised land for
"forty years". This period of years represents the time it takes for a
new generation to arise. (Numbers 32:13)
Several Jewish leaders and kings are said to have ruled for "forty
years", that is, a generation. Examples include Eli (1 Samuel 4:18),
Saul (Acts 13:21), David (2 Samuel 5:4), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:42).
Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for forty days before
David defeated him. (1 Samuel 17:16)
Moses spent three consecutive periods of "forty days and forty nights"
He went up on the seventh day of Sivan, after God gave the Torah to the
Jewish people, in order to learn the Torah from God, and came down on
the seventeenth day of Tammuz, when he saw the Jews worshiping the
Golden Calf and broke the tablets. (Deuteronomy 9:11)
He went up on the eighteenth day of Tammuz to beg forgiveness for the
people's sin and came down without God's atonement on the twenty-ninth
day of Av. (Deuteronomy 9:25)
He went up on the first day of Elul and came down on the tenth day of
Tishrei, the first Yom Kippur, with God's atonement. (Deuteronomy 10:10)
A mikvah consists of 40 se'ah (approximately 200 gallons) of water
The prophet Elijah had to walk 40 days and 40 nights before arriving to
mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:8)
40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin
(Deuteronomy 25:3), though in actual practice only 39 lashes were
administered.[9]
Biblical verse Numbers 14:33-34 alludes to the same with ties to the
prophecy in The Book of Daniel. "For forty years--one year for each of
the forty days you explored the land--you will suffer for your sins and
know what it is like to have me against you.'"
One of the prerequisites for a man to study Kabbalah is that he is forty
years old.

Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the traditions
(JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Post by CDB
"The registering of these men was carried on cruelly, zealously,
assiduously, from the rising of the sun to its going down, and was not
brought to an end in forty days" - (3 Maccabees 4:15)
Christianity[edit]
Christianity similarly uses forty to designate important time periods.[8]
Before his temptation, Jesus fasted "forty days and forty nights" in the
Judean desert. (Matthew 4:2, Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2)
Forty days was the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the
ascension of Jesus. (Acts 1:3)
According to Stephen, Moses' life is divided into three 40-year
segments, separated by his growing to adulthood, fleeing from Egypt, and
his return to lead his people out. (Acts 7:23,30,36)

[CDB]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the
usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the culture
of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural (because
sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way they used the
number in all contexts.

[more examples]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the
usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the culture
of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural (because
sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way they used the
number in all contexts.

What other contexts would we have? Royal inscriptions record contemporary
events, not mythic things given in ceremonial figures. The sort of stuff
that got written on ostraca don't come anywhere near relevant topics.

Post by CDB
[more examples]

(There's plenty of speculation about the sources of the various traditions;
the notion that they represented written sources that were collated by an
editor is no longer believed.)

It's been a long time since I read about these things, but IIRC the "40 x"
trope is taken as diagnostic of one of them.

[CDB]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with
the number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child.
Is the usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the
culture of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural
(because sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way
they used the number in all contexts.

What other contexts would we have? Royal inscriptions record
contemporary events, not mythic things given in ceremonial figures.
The sort of stuff that got written on ostraca don't come anywhere
near relevant topics.

Post by CDB
[more examples]

(There's plenty of speculation about the sources of the various
traditions; the notion that they represented written sources that
were collated by an editor is no longer believed.)
It's been a long time since I read about these things, but IIRC the
"40 x" trope is taken as diagnostic of one of them.

Thanks. Any recollection of whether and how far that tradition (or any
other) was isolated from the common discourse?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with
the number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child.
Is the usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the
culture of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural
(because sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way
they used the number in all contexts.

What other contexts would we have? Royal inscriptions record
contemporary events, not mythic things given in ceremonial figures.
The sort of stuff that got written on ostraca don't come anywhere
near relevant topics.

Post by CDB
[more examples]

(There's plenty of speculation about the sources of the various
traditions; the notion that they represented written sources that
were collated by an editor is no longer believed.)
It's been a long time since I read about these things, but IIRC the
"40 x" trope is taken as diagnostic of one of them.

Thanks. Any recollection of whether and how far that tradition (or any
other) was isolated from the common discourse?

There isn't much comparative material, but when the Lachish Letters or the
Samaria Ostraca are introduced to Hebrew-students, they're often described
as in "pure Biblical Hebrew" -- and they were written by ordinary people.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is
the usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the
culture of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural
(because sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way
they used the number in all contexts.
[more examples]

My conclusion, based on all that I've seen in this thread, is that forty
meant "a lot" -- much like the question that began this thread.

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
 number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child.  Is
the usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows;  but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the
culture of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage?  The examples I quoted are scriptural
(because sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way
they used the number in all contexts.
[more examples]

My conclusion, based on all that I've seen in this thread, is that forty
meant "a lot" -- much like the question that began this thread.

Isn't there something about Jesus receiving 39 lashes because forty
would have constituted a more severe type of punishment?...r

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Moylan
My conclusion, based on all that I've seen in this thread, is that forty
meant "a lot" -- much like the question that began this thread.

Isn't there something about Jesus receiving 39 lashes because forty
would have constituted a more severe type of punishment?...r

Apparently 40 was the maximum, but by Jesus' time it was always reduced
to 39 so that in case the flogger added an extra one by mistake, the
total wouldn't be over 40.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/flogging

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 01:24:25 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[Brader's screwing with attributions and name repaired]

Post by CDB

Post by Mark Brader

Post by CDB

Post by J. J. Lodder
Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical
times. Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the
number of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is
the usage found outside of mythical narrative?

Does "forty winks" qualify?

God knows; but I was thinking of the usage in terms of the
culture of ancient Israel and Judea.

[examples]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ordinarily, biblical scholarship would identify which of the
traditions (JDPE) any particular passage comes from.

Is there reason to think any of those traditions was isolated from
contemporary local usage? The examples I quoted are scriptural
(because sloth) but, as I said, I was really interested in the way
they used the number in all contexts.
[more examples]

My conclusion, based on all that I've seen in this thread, is that forty
meant "a lot" --

The OED agrees:
b. Used indefinitely to express a large number.

Post by Peter Moylan
much like the question that began this thread.

When you have a short sleep, "forty winks", is a that "vacant lot"?

[Madhu]

Post by CDB
*******************************************
40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin
(Deuteronomy 25:3), though in actual practice only 39 lashes were
administered.[9]

That explains what Paul was saying here in the second to the corinthians

11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by CDB
[coming soon: billions and billions]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to
mean "many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number
of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found
outside of mythical narrative? (I'm not asking you to research it,
just wondering if you know of any off-hand.)

Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.

There is no similar special case for 400.

From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.

Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB
[coming soon: billions and billions]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to
mean "many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number
of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found
outside of mythical narrative? (I'm not asking you to research it,
just wondering if you know of any off-hand.)

Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.
There is no similar special case for 400.
From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.
Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.

A good candidate for a taboo word, if it was significant in the livelihood
of the fur trade. 'Bear' was tabooed, cf. English "bear" akin to "bruin"
('the brown one') that has replaced the PIE arktos/ursus word. Something
similar in Russian, IIRC.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by CDB
[coming soon: billions and billions]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Don't pay attention to Harrison, who is famous here for his weird
notions of what is standard. In informal English "a hundred" to
mean "many" is commonplace.

Which shows how far humanity has advanced since biblical times.
Their canonical 'great many of' was forty,

I've always thought there was a connection somewhere with the number
of weeks required to conceive and bear a child. Is the usage found
outside of mythical narrative? (I'm not asking you to research it,
just wondering if you know of any off-hand.)

Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.
There is no similar special case for 400.
From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.
Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.

A good candidate for a taboo word, if it was significant in the livelihood
of the fur trade. 'Bear' was tabooed, cf. English "bear" akin to
"bruin"('the brown one') that has replaced the PIE arktos/ursus word.
Somethingsimilar in Russian, IIRC.

Good thing you're saying this here and not at sci.lang, as you'd risk
having an endless series of posts from Franz Gnaedinger about whether
the bear is the "brown one" or the "furry one", as this is one of his
favourite "test cases" that he'd like you to "go for".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.
There is no similar special case for 400.
From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.
Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.

A good candidate for a taboo word, if it was significant in the livelihood
of the fur trade. 'Bear' was tabooed, cf. English "bear" akin to
"bruin"('the brown one') that has replaced the PIE arktos/ursus word.
Somethingsimilar in Russian, IIRC.

Good thing you're saying this here and not at sci.lang, as you'd risk
having an endless series of posts from Franz Gnaedinger about whether
the bear is the "brown one" or the "furry one", as this is one of his
favourite "test cases" that he'd like you to "go for".

I did have that in mind as I provided the example.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.
There is no similar special case for 400.
From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.
Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.> > A good candidate for a taboo word, if it was significant
in the livelihood

of the fur trade. 'Bear' was tabooed, cf. English "bear" akin to> >
"bruin"('the brown one') that has replaced the PIE arktos/ursus word.>

Post by Peter Moylan
Somethingsimilar in Russian, IIRC.

Good thing you're saying this here and not at sci.lang, as you'd risk>
having an endless series of posts from Franz Gnaedinger about whether>
the bear is the "brown one" or the "furry one", as this is one of his>
favourite "test cases" that he'd like you to "go for".

I did have that in mind as I provided the example.

I thought you might have.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan
[ … ]
Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.

No doubt you all (apart from Harrison) know that French numbers go:

10 ten
20 twenty
30 thirty
40 forty
50 fifty
60 sixty
70 sixty ten (seventy in Belgium and Switzerland)
80 four twenties
90 four twenties ten (ninety in Belgium and Switzerland)

Big deal, you're all saying: everyone (except Harrison) knows that.
However, what is interesting is that at one time (and I think still in
some places) they took the four twenties logic much further and Les
Roys de France et Angleterre has, for example, treize vingt seize,
thirteen twenties sixteen:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=JQOkWGUrSmAC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=%22treize+vingt%22&source=bl&ots=8sKdQVc7OR&sig=AxtcU1WvADCKRTzwZC64DYinaGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv27P9rsTcAhWGzYUKHRAoA4oQ6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22treize%20vingt%22&f=false


or

https://tinyurl.com/ybhgje24

Worse than that, it also has treize vingt xvi (thirteen twenties ten
six) when using a roman numeral. It's too small to be a year, so it's
the 276th something.

Post by Peter Moylan
There is no similar special case for 400.
From what little I can gather, there was an earlier "four tens" form for
40, but it was replaced by сорок which apparently comes from Old Russian
сорокъ meaning "a bunch of sable pelts". (Some sort of "gold standard",
I imagine, for trading purposes.) There is AFAIK disagreement over where
that word came from, with suggested Greek, Turkic, and Finno-Ugraic origins.
Well, we can leave the origins to the linguists, but that still leaves
the question: what makes the word for 40 different in form from other
number words? It must surely mean that 40 was a "special" number in some
way. Especially since 40 turns out to be a special number in some other
cultures.

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:09:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
[ … ]
Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.

10 ten
20 twenty
30 thirty
40 forty
50 fifty
60 sixty
70 sixty ten (seventy in Belgium and Switzerland)
80 four twenties
90 four twenties ten (ninety in Belgium and Switzerland)
Big deal, you're all saying: everyone (except Harrison) knows that.
However, what is interesting is that at one time (and I think still in
some places) they took the four twenties logic much further and Les
Roys de France et Angleterre has, for example, treize vingt seize,

Four score and seven years ago...

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Ken Blake
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:09:43 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
[ … ]
Possibly relevant point: I've often wondered why 40 is a special case in
the Russian numbering system. Counting by tens, we have the following
rough translation of Russian number words.
10 ten
20 two tens
30 three tens
40 sorok
50 five tens
60 six tens
and so on. The 40 breaks the pattern. The word "sorok" is also slightly
irregular in terms of case inflections.

10 ten
20 twenty
30 thirty
40 forty
50 fifty
60 sixty
70 sixty ten (seventy in Belgium and Switzerland)
80 four twenties
90 four twenties ten (ninety in Belgium and Switzerland)
Big deal, you're all saying: everyone (except Harrison) knows
that. However, what is interesting is that at one time (and I think
still in some places) they took the four twenties logic much
further and Les Roys de France et Angleterre has, for example,

Four score and seven years ago...

Initially that sounded a petty commentary on what Athel said, but you
make a good point. Once we were all (apart from Jake the Peg) able to
count up to twenty, so it could make sense to count everything using a
base-20 system.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Moylan
10 ten
20 twenty
30 thirty
40 forty
50 fifty
60 sixty
70 sixty ten (seventy in Belgium and Switzerland)
80 four twenties
90 four twenties ten (ninety in Belgium and Switzerland)

I was caught that way when working in Paris. I used "nonante" in a
conversation, thanks to my Belgian French background. What struck me was
that everyone understood me. The people in France understand the more
logical septante/octante/nonante system. They're just too stubborn to
use it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
10 ten
20 twenty
30 thirty
40 forty
50 fifty
60 sixty
70 sixty ten (seventy in Belgium and Switzerland)
80 four twenties
90 four twenties ten (ninety in Belgium and Switzerland)

I was caught that way when working in Paris. I used "nonante" in a
conversation, thanks to my Belgian French background. What struck me was
that everyone understood me. The people in France understand the more
logical septante/octante/nonante system. They're just too stubborn to
use it.

They wouldn't want to be taken for Swiss, or worse, Belgian,

Jan

--
"Voici mon ami Belge, le druide Septantesix" (Panoramix)

[Lewis]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by a***@gmail.com
Hello！
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian, Hungarian,
Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other languages, have settled in
America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples are shown;
1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times before.
2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and "hundreds
of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can sometimes
mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than five thousand
languages in the world, those who have settled in America must have been the
speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of various languages. Thus I feel if "a
hundred" is literally interpreted as "not more than one hundred," it is
unrealistic.

It is non-standard,

It is perfectly standard.

Post by Harrison Hill
and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds"

No, it doesn't imply multiple hundreds at all. In most cases it simply
means "a lot" and there is no implied number at all.

[HVS]

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Hello
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples
are shown; 1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before. 2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and
"hundreds of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than
five thousand languages in the world, those who have settled in
America must have been the speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of
various languages. Thus I feel if "a hundred" is literally interpreted
as "not more than one hundred," it is unrealistic.

It is non-standard,

It is perfectly standard.

Post by Harrison Hill
and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds"

No, it doesn't imply multiple hundreds at all. In most cases it simply
means "a lot" and there is no implied number at all.

Indeed: "a hundred times" implies "a lot", and "hundreds of times" implies
"really a lot".

(If I told you once, I've told you a thousand times: don't exaggerate.)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by HVS

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples
are shown; 1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before. 2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and
"hundreds of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than
five thousand languages in the world, those who have settled in
America must have been the speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of
various languages. Thus I feel if "a hundred" is literally interpreted
as "not more than one hundred," it is unrealistic.

It is non-standard,

It is perfectly standard.

Post by Harrison Hill
and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds"

No, it doesn't imply multiple hundreds at all. In most cases it simply
means "a lot" and there is no implied number at all.

Indeed: "a hundred times" implies "a lot", and "hundreds of times" implies
"really a lot".

Some other number words that are used in an indefinite, non-literal,
sense are "dozens", "thousands", "millions", "billions".

There is a similar word that doesn't have a literal meaning:
"gazillion".

There is also "ton(s)" meaning "A very large amount".

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by HVS

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Hello?
I would like to know the meaning of *a hundred* in the following sentence;
At various times, huge numbers of speakers of German, Italian,
Hungarian, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and *a hundred* other
languages, have settled in America.
According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it means
"a very large number of things or people" and the following examples
are shown; 1. a hundred; They’ve had this argument a hundred times
before. 2. hundreds of something; He’s had hundreds of girlfriends.
I wonder if "a hundred" is literally not more than one hundred, and
"hundreds of" means "no less than several hundred", or "a hundred" can
sometimes mean "hundreds of". Since there are said to be more than
five thousand languages in the world, those who have settled in
America must have been the speakers of "hundreds or thousands" of
various languages. Thus I feel if "a hundred" is literally interpreted
as "not more than one hundred," it is unrealistic.

It is non-standard,

It is perfectly standard.

Post by Harrison Hill
and suggests (as you suggest) "hundreds"

No, it doesn't imply multiple hundreds at all. In most cases it simply
means "a lot" and there is no implied number at all.

Indeed: "a hundred times" implies "a lot", and "hundreds of times" implies
"really a lot".

I'm not sure there's that much difference.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Some other number words that are used in an indefinite, non-literal,
sense are "dozens", "thousands", "millions", "billions".
"gazillion".

Zillions, jillions, squillions, etc. (Cue George W. Bush joke.) For
smaller indefinite numbers, umpteen and umpty-ump.

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is also "ton(s)" meaning "A very large amount".