Talk:hundred

classification

I know it is a tradition to classify hundred as a cardinal number and dozen as a noun, but on what ground is it justified? If you examine them grammatically, you'll find they are alike, while twenty through ninety are true numerals.

ten men / *a ten men / ?tens of men / *a few ten men

twenty men / *a twenty men / *twenties of men / *a few twenty men

*dozen men / a dozen men / dozens of men / a few dozen men

*score men / a score men / scores of men / a few score men

*hundred men / a hundred men / hundreds of men / a few hundred men

*million men / a million men / millions of men / a few million men

What do you think? - TAKASUGI Shinji 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Many cardinals also behave as nouns, forming plurals, being the object of prepositions, etc.. That is why we usually show them as cardinals and nouns. However, I see no reason to remove "hundred"'s classification as a cardinal. As for "dozen", any discussion belongs on its talk page or at WT:TR. Discussing general questions about the entries for cardinals would belong at WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved this discussion to WT:BP#hundred and thousand. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

h

If the sound h is always pronounced, then why is the expression an hundred horsemen to be found in Keats’ Otho the Great? Is there a chance for it not to be pronounced as in honour? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be poetic pronunciation, or it could be dialectal or even an obsolete pronunciation. The only times I can recall hearing "an 'undred" is from speakers with h-dropping accents. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Originally it was quite fashionable to pronounce Hs which came to English through French-Latin to be pronounced silently (something which survives in words like (deprecated template usage) honour, and which has left other fossils like the way newscasters talk about "an historic occasion"). But most people, obviously enough, weren't to know which words exactly were of Latinate origins, and so there were many instances of unetymological H-dropping like this. It probably sounded a bit posh. It definitely does now. Ƿidsiþ 11:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarifications. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–February 2017

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Redirections to numerals

• a trillion
• a billion
• a million
• a thousand
• a hundred

This is just redundant, isn't it? --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

we have one hundred, one million, one billion and one trillion. these redirect to hundred, million, billion and trillion. note that one thousand has another use, so that shouldn't redirect to thousand. if we have one hundred which redirects to hundred, why shouldn't we have the synonym a hundred? 99.101.56.68 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. We should delete one hundred etc.. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not completely mistaken, we had a lot of numbers which we deleted (see for instance this discussion) and I'm only worried that adding redirections such as a trillion, and so forth, sets a dangerous prerequisite. I can't account for why one hundred, one million, etc. were accepted but I assume it had to do with us not wanting to encourage people to add articles such as two billion, three million and so on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I speedied these before I realised there was a discussion. I can't see any use in them. Equinox ◑ 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@99.101.56.68 the initial discussion is about your redirections – not one million, one hundred etc., which belong to an entirely different discussion. Please don't add them again to this discussion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting a word redirected to word. This is similar > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. They are just nouns with an indefinite article. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• RFD deleted by DTLHS on Feb 23. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A centimetre is a submultiple of a metre, being contained in it hundred times.

Is leaving out one/a here grammatically correct ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

hun'

Told her I'd keep it a hun' --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

a hundred of bricks

According to the OED: only in measures of quantity the structure is a hundred of bricks. Is such usage properly covered yet? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A set or group with 100 elements

something representing, represented by, or consisting of 100 units
Collins Concise English Dictionary 

--Backinstadiums (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

hundreds a generally large number: Hundreds came to the funeral. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They won hundreds of dollars; five hundreds to be precise!

‘They won hundreds of dollars; five hundreds to be precise!’
 "The Name of the Number", by Michael A. B. Deakin , page 48.

Is the meaning of hundred used in the second sentence already added in its wiktionary entry? the most comprehensive source: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00109312 --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more or less covered by the first definition, "A numerical value equal to 100". It's unusual to count hundreds in this way, i.e. to say "five hundreds" rather than "five hundred"/"500", and I think the author is deliberating exploiting that for a humorous effect. It might more naturally come up in, say, a classroom setting where the decimal number system is being taught. "528 is made up of five hundreds, two tens, and eight ones." Colin M (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Many hundreds more students

Is it grammatically correct to omit the preposition of in Many hundreds more students? If so, what PoS are hundred and more here?

Otherwise, where would of go in the phrase? I am taking the phrase's come up from the simpler Hundreds of students. --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

HUNDRED: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00109312 and MORE: https://www.oed.com/oed2/00151364 --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: It must be omitted. You cannot say "hundreds (or millions, thousands, etc.) of more students"; that is wrong. Equinox ◑ 11:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: Which of the current Wiktionary meanings of both hundred and more are used in hundreds more students ? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Used only for whole hundreds

The multilingual usage note reads Used only for whole hundreds... What does whole mean here though? JMGN (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Im confused too, but I think it means that we only say the word "hundred" in this context when it is a round number. Thus 500 is pronounced "five hundred" but 501 would be something like "five zero one". It would be better if the usage notes had an example of correct use of the word instead of just two examples where it is not correct to use it. —Soap— 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)