6

As the title says, why is there a "one" before "hundred", before "thousand", and so on, but not before "ten"?

This seems shared between some languages, including Chinese (10 = 十 = ten, 100 = 一百 = one hundred), but not others, like French (10 = dix = ten, 100 = cent = hundred).

JSBձոգչ
  • 54,843
Hello71
  • 201
  • Although it's not an answer, I would say 'a hundred' in preference to 'one hundred'. – Richard A Jul 26 '11 at 03:15
  • Let me ask a follow-up question: in pronouncing numbers such as 150, is it ever acceptable to omit the "one" and just say "hundred fifty"? (It certainly is in German, and German speakers often carry this over to English.) – painfulenglish Sep 11 '14 at 21:24

3 Answers3

19

The simplest explanation, which does not really delve into linguistics at all, is that "ten" is not a unit that you use in multiples. That is, "20" is not spoken of as "two-tens", "50" is not spoken of as "five-tens". Thus there is no need for the disambiguation of specifying "one ten". (French seems to have decided that if you don't specify a count, "one" is assumed, as you don't say "un cent", "un mille", "un milliard", etc.)

Hellion
  • 59,365
7

This may not be quite the answer you were looking for, but the reason is because English has special words for twenty, thirty and so on. There is no such equivalent for hundred or thousand or even dozen which leaves us with saying two thousand or four dozen.

MrHen
  • 35,747
  • 32
  • 124
  • 264
0

The similarity to Chinese is probably a complete coincidence. My gut feeling as to why this is like it is in English is that, in some strange sense, "hundred" is more like "dozen"... not a number, per se, but a (dimensionless) unit of measure.

From the Wikipedia page on dimensionless quantities:

"Units of amount such as the dozen and the gross are also dimensionless."

Just to set the record straight.

Patrick87
  • 528
  • 2
    hundred and dozen are most definitely numbers... – whoabackoff Jul 26 '11 at 14:04
  • @whoa: Calling them numbers may be misleading in the sense that we do not count from nine, ten, eleven, dozen. Also, compare the dictionary entries for twelve and dozen. – MrHen Jul 26 '11 at 19:07
  • @MrHen, The fact that we do not use dozen in place of 12 when counting is irrelevant. I don't count 1, 2, 3, pi, 4... That doesn't make pi any less of a number. – whoabackoff Jul 26 '11 at 20:47
  • @whoa: It is relevant in that it was an example of where dozen isn't really considered a number: All of math. 2 * 6 = 12 When choosing to write it out, you would write "two times six equals twelve" not "two times six equals dozen." You could say "two time six equals a dozen" but now you have an article in there. If you feel comfortable calling that a number, so be it. I was just pointing out that it may be misleading to consider dozen the same kind of number as twelve much like a six isn't the same "kind" of "number" as six or 6. – MrHen Jul 26 '11 at 22:35
  • @mrhen, That's preposterous. "Jimmy has a dozen eggs, he gives Sally half, how many does he have left?". Answer: 12 * 1/2 = 6. According to your logic, 'half' wouldn't be considered a number either? A dozen is a real number, even in Math... – whoabackoff Jul 26 '11 at 22:50
  • @whoa: I am simply trying to point out the difference between dozen and twelve with regards to their qualifications for the label "number". There is a difference and just calling dozen a "number" may be misleading. And yes, it would be just as misleading to refer to "a half" as a number. Or "a whole" or "first". Do they technically qualify as numbers? You tell me. My point is that even if they do, there is a difference between those and numbers like 9, 10, pi, i. – MrHen Jul 26 '11 at 23:02
  • @whoabackoff: So, according to your definition of number, pair times pair times few equals dozen? Nevermind that you are ignoring the fact that pair, few, dozen, score, hundred, gross, etc. are commonly used as units of measure. – Patrick87 Jul 27 '11 at 01:05
  • @whoabackoff: Radians and degrees are dimensionless units of measure. Try consulting the Wikipedia entry on "dimensionless quantity" for a discussion of "dimensionless units". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity. – Patrick87 Jul 27 '11 at 14:54
  • @thom, I am simply trying to point out that dozen is considered a number, even in math. Don't confuse units of measurement (e.g., kg, m, s, K, V) with dimensionless quantities (e.g., pi, e, golden ratio, dozen (aka 12), gross (aka 144)) and indefinite and fictitious numbers (e.g., few, eleventy, some, bunch, thirty-something). While 'dozen' may be a dimensionless unit of measure, 'hundred' is not. And your answer remains incorrect. – whoabackoff Jul 27 '11 at 15:11
  • Did you read the Wikipedia article? Clearly I'm not the only person alive who thinks calling "dozen" a "dimensionless unit of measure" is acceptable. If you accept this Wikipedia page to be at all authoritative, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than that you are incorrect in this matter. – Patrick87 Jul 27 '11 at 15:13
  • This might be why teachers in schools tell their students not to cite Wikipedia... – william fakespeare Jun 10 '21 at 01:58