6 ms·

Billion has wildly different meanings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

lambdaxyzw 2y ago
I disagree, as a native speaker of a language where "bilion" means 10^12, it's clear to me that "billion" means 10^9 when used in English text. So I disagree that is ambiguous. But maybe that's wiem that way to make sure foreigners with poor understanding of English don't read it incorrectly, because I guess it gets confusing (even journalists sometimes make a mistake of translating that wrong).
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  "Billion" meant 10^12 in England until... some time in the 1950s, I think? But 10^9 in the USA. So there was confusion, even in the English-speaking world. Was. If I understand correctly, England has adopted 10^9, and so now there is no ambiguity.
justin66 2y ago
Who knew? But that article indicates America has used the short scale (base ten) forever and the UK has used it since 1974, so let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion regarding the meaning of 'billion' and there's a different norm at work here.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion The FT has a big international audience. As a German reader where a "Billion" is still 10^12 it does sometimes trip me up a little. So I at least find it useful.
  - justin66 2y ago
    That's a decent point, but what I don't get is, when I do a Google Translate from English to German for "billion," I get "Milliarde." Is the concern that German readers, reading the article in translation to German, will be confused? It would seem like the German readers reading the English article would understand. Not trying to argue any point (I mean honestly...), just trying to understand the German POV here, which is interesting.
    - hibbelig 2y ago
      You may not be aware that it's a false friend. The German word Billion exists, and it means trillion. So the German reader will read the English article (in English, not auto-translated), see the word billion, think “oh that looks familiar” and might assume it means the same as the German word Billion. Machine translation makes quite a few mistakes, so I think if you have some decent knowledge of a language, you might be better off reading the original rather than a machine translation. At least my point of view from a couple of years ago. But it's also possible that machine translation has gotten WAY better in the last couple of years, I'm not sure.
      - justin66 2y ago
        Thanks. Interesting.
- peeters 2y ago
  > the UK has used it since 1974, so let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion Anyone aged around 60 or older would have been learning these numbers before 1974, and that's a significant overlap with FT's audience. You are dismissing this as if it's Middle English. It's an entirely reasonable explanation, at least one that shouldn't be dismissed.
  - justin66 2y ago
    Fair point.
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    And there was a transition period where younger people need to know that the term could be ambiguous. It's not like they burned all the maths texts in 1974 and replaced them with newer literature. Older text books were probably in use into the 80s and perhaps the 90s. From the writing of the era, it's clear this new definition for million was not popular, and many chose to continue using the "British meaning." So it was probably in colloquial use for quite a while, and the transitional term "1 thousand million" became the proper style.
hoosieree 2y ago
Prefer "zillion" or "kajillion" to avoid these sorts of pitfalls.
- pi-rat 2y ago
  I worked for a FX market maker, and we just used "yards". Removes any confusion for european and american collaboration. Got old roots dating back to cockney trading slang: "The Old Lady just bought half a yard of cable"

I disagree, as a native speaker of a language where "bilion" means 10^12, it's clear to me that "billion" means 10^9 when used in English text. So I disagree that is ambiguous. But maybe that's wiem that way to make sure foreigners with poor understanding of English don't read it incorrectly, because I guess it gets confusing (even journalists sometimes make a mistake of translating that wrong).

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
"Billion" meant 10^12 in England until... some time in the 1950s, I think? But 10^9 in the USA. So there was confusion, even in the English-speaking world. Was. If I understand correctly, England has adopted 10^9, and so now there is no ambiguity.

justin66 2y ago

Who knew? But that article indicates America has used the short scale (base ten) forever and the UK has used it since 1974, so let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion regarding the meaning of 'billion' and there's a different norm at work here.

Barrin92 2y ago
>let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion The FT has a big international audience. As a German reader where a "Billion" is still 10^12 it does sometimes trip me up a little. So I at least find it useful.
- justin66 2y ago
  That's a decent point, but what I don't get is, when I do a Google Translate from English to German for "billion," I get "Milliarde." Is the concern that German readers, reading the article in translation to German, will be confused? It would seem like the German readers reading the English article would understand. Not trying to argue any point (I mean honestly...), just trying to understand the German POV here, which is interesting.
  - hibbelig 2y ago
    You may not be aware that it's a false friend. The German word Billion exists, and it means trillion. So the German reader will read the English article (in English, not auto-translated), see the word billion, think “oh that looks familiar” and might assume it means the same as the German word Billion. Machine translation makes quite a few mistakes, so I think if you have some decent knowledge of a language, you might be better off reading the original rather than a machine translation. At least my point of view from a couple of years ago. But it's also possible that machine translation has gotten WAY better in the last couple of years, I'm not sure.
    - justin66 2y ago
      Thanks. Interesting.
peeters 2y ago
> the UK has used it since 1974, so let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion Anyone aged around 60 or older would have been learning these numbers before 1974, and that's a significant overlap with FT's audience. You are dismissing this as if it's Middle English. It's an entirely reasonable explanation, at least one that shouldn't be dismissed.
- justin66 2y ago
  Fair point.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  And there was a transition period where younger people need to know that the term could be ambiguous. It's not like they burned all the maths texts in 1974 and replaced them with newer literature. Older text books were probably in use into the 80s and perhaps the 90s. From the writing of the era, it's clear this new definition for million was not popular, and many chose to continue using the "British meaning." So it was probably in colloquial use for quite a while, and the transitional term "1 thousand million" became the proper style.

hoosieree 2y ago

Prefer "zillion" or "kajillion" to avoid these sorts of pitfalls.

pi-rat 2y ago
I worked for a FX market maker, and we just used "yards". Removes any confusion for european and american collaboration. Got old roots dating back to cockney trading slang: "The Old Lady just bought half a yard of cable"