Talk:untrigintillion
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Created by the same editor as the other "large numerals" entries above, who still creates them without any citations. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move these to the dictionary-only terms appendix, or even give them an appendix of their own. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- And shouldn't this be unotrigintillion, which has one citation? Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- untrigintillion is the form you’d expect, in analogy with undecillion. However, whereas undecillion is from existing Latin ūndecim + -illion, there is no Latin numeral *ūntriginta; the Latin term for XXXI is triginta (et) unus/-a/-um, literally “thirty (and) one”. Pages tretrigintillion, quattuortrigintillion, quintrigintillion, ..., were all deleted in 2006; the latter even again in 2015. --Lambiam 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- And shouldn't this be unotrigintillion, which has one citation? Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've found two citations: Citations:untrigintillion. I like the idea of an appendix for the unattestable ones. (The citations at Citations:sexvigintillion can be used to attest many others.) - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I created tthe appendix for large numbers and replaced this entry with a redirect to that appendix. Kiwima (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)