one hundred quintillion
a hundred quintillion
The words for very large numbers
If you're wondering how to form other huge numbers like this, here's the pattern:
A thousand thousands is a million: 1,000,000.
A thousand millions is a billion: 1,000,000,000.
A thousand billions is a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000.
A thousand trillions is a ...
Unless the second is a typo, then neither are correct.
"There is a lot of" and "There are a lot of" are both legitimate terms, depending on whether the noun is countable or not.
There are a lot of cars. ("cars" is countable)
There is a lot of sugar. ("sugar" is not countable)
In your example, animals are countable, therefore the sentence ...
Wikipedia lists large scale numbers here.
As only the 10x with x= multiples of 3 get their own names, you read 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 as 100 * 1018, so this is
100 quintillion in American and British English and
100 trillion in most (non-English speaking) other places.
(Practical approach: The different naming patterns for large numbers obviously ...
I think the lesson on Learn English Today is very clear.
A lot of can be used in all sentences: affirmative, negative and interrogative.
Much and many are used in negative and interrogative sentences.
They are rarely used in affirmative sentences, except if they begin the sentence.
So, the sentence in the question is most commonly written or spoken ...
You've left out the most important alternative: almost. Here's an expanded version of your Google Ngram:
In most everyone, most is a contracted version of almost, an adverb modifying the every component of everyone. (Yes, I know everyone is written as one word, but syntactically it's apprehended as a 'pronominal' version of every. Any(one) works the same ...
Assuming that what you have is 48 mangoes; you have four dozen mangoes.
The reason for this is that "four dozen" is a number. You wouldn't say "I have four of mango", "fours of mangoes" etc.
Use of dozen is, of course, an English oddity, but it does compare to the other units OK: So "I have four hundred mangoes" is the same construction.
The rule is simple. It depends on whether you're using `dozen' as an adjective or as a noun. Nouns can be singular or plural; adjectives are unit-less (as the noun that the adjective is qualifying carries the numerical dimension).
So, the following are correct:
Dozen as a Noun
Dozens of mangoes were destroyed (what a pity!).
Give me a dozen ['of those' ...
You can call it a hundred million million million.
The three million in a row can be a bit confusing, which is why the word trillion was invented. Trillion is a contraction of tri (meaning three) and million. That would make the name a hundred trillion.
Unfortunately some languages including English have redefined the word trillion to mean 1 000 000 000 ...
If people expect that there are a large number of animals there, and you know that there are some animals, although not very many, then you could say:
There are a very few animals there.
However, if you want to stress not the fact that the animals are there, but that there are not many, then you should say:
There are very few animals there.
Yes, proof can be quantifiable. One obvious context is the realm of mathematics, where there may be more than one proof of a theorem. So, for example, one could say:
There aren't many proofs for the four-colored map problem.
Many early proofs of Fermat's last theorem were found to contain errors.
On the other hand, proof is sometimes used in a way ...
Most everyone is better than mostly, because everyone is a pronoun, which the quantifier most can modify. I should note, however, that a by far better option is almost, because most is a colloquial variant.
A pronoun works like a noun. See how the quantifier mostly modifies a noun:
Most desserts are sweet.
Mostly is not a quantifier but an adverb. An ...
Use "much" to describe a relative amount of a noun that can't be easily counted or quantified. If you can't put a number before the noun, use "much."
Also, if you replace the object with a pronoun, it should be singular (it). Consider "collective nouns" that are singular but describe an unquantifiable volume.
"Much" is ...
They are all used to mean "a large quantity" but it depends on what you are talking about. "Much" is used for uncountable nouns, "Many" is used for countable nouns, whereas "a lot of" and "lots of" are used in both cases. For example here's how I'd describe a fair I went to last week:
There wasn't much to see at the fair. Although there were many people ...
This question turned out to be tricky. I feel that in your example one should say:
There are very few animals there.
because the noun 'animals' is plural. If you delete the word "very", however, you can say:
There are a few animals there.
which will mean 'there are some animals there', or
There are few animals there.
which will mean 'there are ...
The following statement is correct:
My teacher said that all of it was correct, with only one exception.
If you wish to use "most of it", then the sentence is better framed along the lines of:
My teacher said that most of it was correct, the only exception being (go on to elaborate what was wrong).
This is not the same question, but a related/...
As others before me have said, there are names for very large numbers, but these are quite esoteric and people may not know what you're talking about. These names aren't like "thousand" or "million", unless you've sat down with a list and learned them, you probably won't know them. They just don't come up in day-to-day use. In my experience, they tend to be ...
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 is 100×1018 or 100×103+(3×5), so this is
"one/a hundred quintillion" to most English speakers around the world today (including those in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria).
While many native English speakers will not know the rarely seen word, at least in the U.S. it ...
In these sentences, "do they really" essentially means "is it really true that they". If you rewrite the sentences like that, it should become clear which is correct:
Is it really true that they have nothing in common?
Is it really true that they have anything in common?
Obviously the version with nothing is correct (the statement you ...
The sentence is in two clauses, joined with but. That means that the second clause must qualify the first and negate its assertion.
The quantifier in the first clause is many, so the second clause must use a word or phrase which does not mean (or is the opposite of) many.
Many expresses a large number of countable objects, so the second clause needs a word ...
I haven't seen anyone suggest it, yet, but I would just say this as "One times ten to the twentieth [power]," where [power] is optional. To me, this seems less confusing when dealing with numbers of magnitudes above the trillions. It doesn't run into any of the regional interpretation problems listed in the answers above regarding the meaning of 'billion' ...
Regarding the issue whether and which languages are interesting, both sentences say the same thing in my opinion. The difference is made only by the choice of "all" - a more general expression, possibly shifting the focus slightly on the fact that all languages have something in common, e.g. being a means of verbal communication - versus "every", which ...
A few is used to express a count or estimate of items:
I saw a few people.
I saw a few dozen people ... which may also be expressed, rather old-fashionedly, as a few dozens of people
I saw a few hundred people ... or a few hundreds of people —again, an old-fashioned use
Bare few is used as either an adjective/determiner or a pronoun to express ...
Yes, they convey different meanings.
I didn't have many apples.
I had few apples.
Simply put, sentence one conveys the meaning that the speaker didn't have as many apples as it would take to call the apples "many". Sentence two tells us that the speaker had a small number of apples.
They could mean the same, but they do not. "I ...
Note that the usage has changed over time. My familiarity is with money, so I see in old references "10 millions of dollars", now I would find "10 million dollars". The first way is not grammatically incorrect, but it is so archaic that it would probably sound and feel wrong to many English users today.
one hundred quintillion
a hundred quintillion
This is the list of numbers (truncated):
1,000,000: a million
1,000,000,000: a billion
1,000,000,000,000: a trillion
1,000,000,000,000,000: a quadrillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000: a quintillion
In the above list, you can replace "a" with a number from zero to nine. That means to multiply a number ...