Talk:Lakh

message: laksha not to be confused with lakshya (goal).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IMpbt (talk • contribs) 08:58, 12 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Cleaned up by 23-v,340vpe4wtme4p;t,e0 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  laksha 

message: I read the article (ran across the word in an Indian novel a few years ago, figured out what it meant from the context, came to look it up here because I was discussing it with a friend)...and found it perfectly clear and understandable. I vote we remove the tag. -jackbrown
I think it was confusing and gave it a try to disentangle. The problem is the discussion of "spelling" variants, which really are irrelevant English transliteration variants mixed with variants of the actual word. The parenthesis about laksha was just the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to elaborate further, but what I did takes care of the tag and I removed it. Gschadow 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added when the article was full of jargon. It has since been improved, the tag can be removed. Ekantik talk 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's up with the confusing tag? 

message: What is there to cite in this article, exactly? --Ttownfeen (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite tag 

message: In all seriousness. Lakh and crore are not proper nouns and we have English words that have the exact same meanings.  Why would anybody use these words at all?  If I see them used in a Wikipedia article should I replace them with their English equivalents? Veecort (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lac and crore are used in English-language texts primarily in South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.). These countries all have a huge number of English-language newspapers, magazines, books, etc., and they predominantly use the Indian numbering system (with lacs and crores) as opposed to ten-thousands, hundred-thousands, etc. Of course, these numbers (even in their English variants) are not used widely outside South Asia. --SameerKhan (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By far the majority of English speakers, speak English as a secondary language, and by far the majority of teachers of English as a secondary language are in India. BBC has long-since given up prescribing a BBC standard for English, to the chagrin of many who tune in to tune up their English; but BBC acknowledges that the English no longer own English (if, indeed, they ever did.) Pawyilee (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain and India have a long common history. A number of words have travelled from India to England to spice the English language, why stop now??Petethewhistle (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because when you want help with your Oracle database problem, the English/American guy on the forums you are desperately asking for assistance on, and who has the answer to your problem, will have literally no idea what you are referring to and will probably point blank refuse to answer your questions. Just a tip. - 210.80.189.226 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why we need to have it here, so the guy (or even gal) can look it up i wikipedia and learn.Petethewhistle (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

text: See MOS:NUMERAL. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When would we, as English speakers, even use this word? 

message: the system i know is
1 - one
10 - ten
100 - hundred
1,000 - thousand
10,000 - ten thousand
100,000 - lakh (hundred thousand)
1,000,000 - 10 lakhs (million)
10,000,000 - 1 crore (10 million)
100,000,000 - 10 crore (100 million)
1,000,000,000 - 100 crore (1billion)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.105.245 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Cleaned up by 23-v,340vpe4wtme4p;t,e0 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 to 1 billion 

message: I deleted Lakh in other languages having Proto-Indo-European roots: English lac "red resinous substance," as there are more plausible origins for the red resin in the Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary.--Pawyilee (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other" deleted 

message: The root meaning of lakh is stake, and it was only by customary association with an amount or value of items being wagered in gambling that it came to mean a hundred thousand. Thailand preserves the original meaning of stake in Lak Mueang and Thai highway milestones, which are called lak or lakh kilomet. Milestone as goal is lakh chai, i.e., victory stake. It is also reflected in the Thai place value system for the powers of ten: the unit's place is lakh nuay, ten's place lakh sip, hundred's place lakh roi, lakh meun the thousand's place, lakh saan being the hundred thousand's place, and lakh lahn the million's. There are even higher-value lakh, but not in everyday usage. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stake 

message: Lak as root of lacquer is [1] disputed and [2] relevant to root meaning pf stake. --Pawyilee (talk)
—Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  lak as root of lacquer 

message: I have taken the liberty of cleaning up some topics here :
* removed redundant text from the top of the page (number system)
* added a title and removed whitespace from  "laksha" topic
* Removed whitespace and superfluous text, added punctuation and cleaned up the spelling mistakes in "1 to 1 billion" topic 
--23-v,340vpe4wtme4p;t,e0 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up of content 

message: " one hundred thousand (100,000; Scientific notation: 105), written as 1,00,000." - is that comma supposed to be there? Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on purpose. See MOS:NUMERAL. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is case - according to the link you posted above - then it is wrong. We are supposed to used Western notations "Group digits in Western thousands-based style (e.g., 30,000,000; not 3,00,00,000)" Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  something wrong here? 

message: I just linked the word "ounces" in the "precious metals" section. However, there are multiple conflicting definitions of "ounce." Can an expert please specify the type of "ounce" used in conjunction with "lakh" when referring to precious metals? My unedcucated guess is that it is a troy ounce. -Arch dude (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After trivial research, I changed this to Troy ounce and added a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ounces? 

message: The article claims that "lakh" isn't used in Pakistan in English. I did a search of Dawn, daily from Karachi that seems to disagree.  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: edited to say "used mostly", but erroneously used an Indian example. A usage example from Pakistan: http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/viral/on-modis-request-30-lakh-muslims-join-bjp-during-recent-membership-drive/ RickJP (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: An editor recently PRODded this page; I do not agree with that, but I do agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic here is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on this page should be merged into the Indian numbering system article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic of this article 

message: The short description of this article currently states "100,000 - 1,00,000 in Indian numbering", which I find confusing to the average English-language reader. Not only does it look like "1,000,000" (1,00,000 being an unfamiliar number due to the placement of the comma), but it doesn't seem to add anything useful to the description (a proper explanation of the numbering system, including placement of commas, is included in the article). I suggest the short description be changed to "100,000 in Indian numbering". werewolf (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 3O Response: I think that I prefer this solution over the status quo. Another solution would be   or   as that makes it clear that this is an alternative phrasing of the same number and not a range. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This this keeps being changed from 1,00,000 to 100,000 and back, I've changed it to: 100,000 (1,00,000 in Indian numbering) which should satisfy both formats. (Hohum @) 23:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description of article 

message: The dicdef template was added  in September last year with no rationale (other than "blatant dicdef", which is an opinion, rather than an explanation). I can only assume it refers to the list of other language variants that were there. As they’ve now been removed, there’s nothing I can see that justifies it, so I’ve deleted it. If anyone has a coherent rationale, they can always put it back...Moonraker12 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicdef template