Talk:Crore

Untitled

Shouldn't we write "equals 100 lakhs" as in "100 million" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.137.124 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

no, 1 lakh = 100 thousand, so 100 lakh = 10 million

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.92.158 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What about reading it in a sentence: How would you understand one lakh thirty two thousand crores? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.145.130 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is "crore" pronounced? Does it rhyme with "more"? jnestorius^(talk) 01:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound like "more". --Ragib 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! jnestorius^(talk) 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Crore is pronounced as more in its Anglicized form (the same way it's written in English). In its Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani form it's pronounced as kuror where ku- is as mu- in must, ro- as mo- in more and a unique "r" sound which doesn't exist in English and is pronounced by pushing the tongue up beyond the upper gums. 59.178.26.50 09:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Oriya the second "r" sound is kind of between an english "r" and an english "d", so english speakers sometimes think that alternately "crode" and "crore" was spoken. This is, apparently, a vexing word to pronounce in american english until you get used to it. The article should also make it's statement more strongly that crore is not just widely used, but nobody ever describes quantities in millions, or at least very rarely (in India, anyway, not sure how widespread in Pak and Bangladesh). Almost always lakh and crore. 65.112.197.16 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Note that Sri Lanka does not refer to the term crore when referring to money to terms in millions. Lakh is used quite commonly in Sri Lanka, but not crore.

This sentence is all but unintelligible to me. Does that mean Sri Lanka uses crore in non-monetary contexts? (the first paragraph would imply they do.) Or is it rarely used at all, instead opting for million after lakh? —Wiki Wikardo 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It should actually be Sri Lanka does not refer to the term crore, (at least in Sinhalese). They use the word Koti quite commonly. This is now gradually getting less and less used and the words 'Miliyana' for million and 'Biliyana' for billion are more common in use. The word Lakh is for 100,000. --130.194.13.106 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So, should the earlier paragraph ("still widely used in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, and formerly in Iran") be changed to still widely used in Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, and Pakistan, and formerly in Iran and Sri Lanka.? Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When would we, as English speakers, even use this word?

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) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

See MOS:NUMERAL. Summary: always provide a western conversion also. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

in places like Jackson Heights (Queens NY) or in Silicon Valley it's not uncommon to see the word Lakh. Crore is uncommon. Rskurat (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A comment on the Japanese cognate

The article lists a Japanese cognate 倶胝 kutei. This is not a word in common use in Japan where the normal expression for 10,000 (lakh) is 万(man) and 10,000,000 is a thousand (sen) man (千万). I checked my dictionaries and the only use for kutei is in Buddhist sutras. The word is therefore really Chinese since the sutras are not translated into Japanese but are Chinese read with a Japanese pronunciation. The Chinese might also decline ownership but I don't speak Chinese. I suspect that the word traveled out of the Subcontinent with Buddhism. It may be a small point but it seems a streach to count this as a Japanese cognate, there are remarkably few if any Indo-European roots in the Japanese language. Hkc94501 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Indian aggrandizement?

The article needs far more English-language text-book references. As it stands- it is an excellent exemplar of Indian cultural aggrandizement with no basis in fact. You're more than welcome to feel proud of Hindu history- just please back it up with peer-reviewed texts. I also argue that the Chinese and Japanese numbers were never influenced by the Hindu system as so claimed. Buddhist Brahmi or Dewanegara language was solely used by the elites and ruling classes and had minimal impact on the common man. Common indigenous market terms would be all-pervasive.Starstylers (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to change in the current text of the article? --macrakis (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I noticed that none of the Indian words listed in this article actually has the "kr-" sound at the beginning that the English word has picked up. Is this the result of English butchering the original word, or does the original Sanskrit word start with a "kr"? Just curious, if anyone knows Sanskrit and could include it in the article.118.71.10.146 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That was dumb. I just read again and saw that the Sanskrit word is koti. Still, whence the "kr-"? I see that millionaire is apparently "crorepati."118.71.10.146 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Crore equals carora in Spanish?

I looked it up in : http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=carora (Real Academia Española's dictionary of the Spanish language and it says it does not exist in Spanish. It seems to be the name of a town in Venezuela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.192.193 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Money

I think there's an error in the fourth row of =. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.8.52 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

One crore two crores?

Is it two crore or two crores? 71.139.161.62 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't tell you what the dictionary might say but in usage I've only ever heard crore as the plural. DickyP (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Crore is the plural of crore, no -s appended Rskurat (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

inconsistency

A crore is usually written 1,00,00,000 and in the body of the page it's written that way. However, in the first paragraph it says "is written in these regions as 10,000,000 with the local style of digit group separators" which is the western, not local style. Is this an oversight or am I misunderstanding the intentions of the editor? Rskurat (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Demographics

"The population of a country is usually expressed in crores." I contest this - the use of "usually" might be accurate in limited area, but is not wide spread through the English speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.254.254 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2017

I've removed this. It's a bit pointless, because essentially any large enough number of anything is going to be referred to using crores, by people who use the term. (Hohum ^@) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Crore vs Metric?

Do people use crore with metric units? For example, would somebody say, The Earth is 15 crore kilometers from the Sun? For something like electric power, it's common (in Western English) to just use the right metric prefix. So, Electricity sector in India talks about, 344.00 GW, not 344 trillion Watts. But, western people (or, at least, Americans) tend not to talk about Megameters, Gigameters, etc. Instead they use thousands of kilometers, millions of kilometers, etc. I'm curious how this works in India. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose removal of italics

At Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Foreign_terms the recommendation is to italicize "isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". Indian English is the most popular form of English language and does not italicize this word.

I propose removing the italics from the title of this article and avoiding italicizing this word elsewhere on English Wikipedia. I recognize that this word is not common in communities without cultural exchange with the Indian diaspora, but we do not italicize words which are specific to countries including the United States, England, and Australia. Similarly, I think we should not italicize this fundamental concept in Indian English. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. What exactly is meant by "non-specialized English"? Specialized English doesn't seem to be relevant. (Hohum ^@) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Digit grouping

After doing some original research of the Indian numbering system article, I found some inconsistencies with how people claim the grouping should work for this meeting system. I put together a table of how I've understood it working: Talk:Indian numbering system#Digit grouping inconsistencies.

What you have here are two systems; one that groups 10,000,00,00,000 and one that groups 1,00,00,00,00,000. I've called then 2-3-3 repeating and ...2-2-2-2-2-3 expanding, based on their groupings.

The repeating system goes: thousand - lakh - crore - thousand crore - lakh crore - crore crore - thousand crore crore - lakh crore crore - crore crore crore - ...
The expanding system goes: thousand - lakh - crore - arab - kharab - nil - padma - shankh - ...

Note how only one of them has a lakh crore. The repeating system ends at crore, and starts over until that reaches a crore, and repeates in infinity. In this system, every crore is represented by ",00,00,000", and a lakh is ",00,000", so one lakh crore is "1,00,000,00,00,000" and one crore crore is "1,00,00,000,00,00,000".

In the expanding system moves on beyond the crore, to arab, kharab and so on. This system will never reach lakh crore, because it never ends. Here, each of these words are represented by ",00" (with the initial thousand being ",000"), meaning that ten kharab (equals one lakh crore), is written as "10,00,00,00,00,000". This system would require a new word for every 100× multiple, and has an end, and people have to coin new terms to count further.

So if my research is correct, this article should state that one lakh crore is formatted as "1,00,000,00,00,000" instead of "10,00,00,00,00,000"; because you read it as one "1" lakh ",00,000" crore ",00,00,000". When written as "10,00,00,00,00,000", it's read as ten "10" kharab ",00,00,00,00,000". One lakh, regardless of position, should always be formatted as ",00,000", and that's why you have the 2-2-3-2-2-3 format appearing.
Liggliluff (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting - however, wikipedia will need a source that states your conclusion directly to include it in the article, otherwise it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS. (Hohum ^@) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fff

Drrrfh 2406:7400:75:8BAF:2DD0:585D:D396:5E33 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Maths matics

How many million make a crore 2409:4050:2E8A:E7A1:B3CA:CC3:10DA:F034 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Cricket

Samjidul 45.115.13.223 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Help me

My name: Samjidul Age 18 I don't have a hand please help me 45.115.13.223 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)