English.. Is it fine to say 43 lakh or 43 lakhs , what is the difference?
By RUBESH
@Manasha (2860)
Pondicherry, India
4 responses
@owlwings (43902)
• Cambridge, England
11 Oct 12
The word 'lakh' is not an English word. It is borrowed from Hindi (I believe). I don't know what the plural of 'lakh' is in Hindi but it is probably not 'lakhs'. When used in English (as an English word), it would normally follow the same rules as other numerical words where the use of the plural or not is a convention rather than any set rule.
When talking about a definite (or sometimes an indefinite) number, one does NOT usually use the plural, for example:
"Three hundred pounds", "Several million pounds"
BUT if the word is used in a GENERAL sense (as an order of magnitude), then the plural is often used:
"You can earn thousands of pounds a year", "There were hundreds of people in the crowd"
A lakh is equal to 100,000 (for which there is no word in English but which, in words, would be pronounced "a hundred thousand"). If the amount stolen was 4,300,000 [rupees] this would be expressed as "four million three hundred thousand rupees" in English terminology or (following the same rules) "forty three lakh", however, Indian English is actually a different 'dialect' of English (as is American English) and the convention would seem to be to say "43 lakhs [of rupees]". See Merriam-Webster's definition here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lakh
@owlwings (43902)
• Cambridge, England
11 Oct 12
A question: If you were writing "43 lakh[s]" in Hindi/Urdu, would the word 'lakh' change to be in the plural? In other words, would the word 'lakh' be different if you were to say "one lakh" and "ten lakh[s]" in Hindi? Also, does the word really belong properly to money or can it be used of anything (can you say "The crowd was nearly three lakh."?)


@DoctorDidi (7018)
• India
11 Oct 12
Though 'lakh' is not an English word, but we, the Indians' use it in English. As 43 is a pleural number, it would definitely be 43lakhs in stead of 43lakh. But modern English does not always follow grammar strictly. For example, the correct form is 'He is taller than I', but 'He is taller than me' is now mainly used and is treated as correct. So you can use whatever you like.
@owlwings (43902)
• Cambridge, England
11 Oct 12
'Lakh' is a Hindi/Urdu word and the sound 'kh' doesn't occur in English (we would pronounce the word to rhyme with 'back' or, perhaps, 'bark' - it would depend on the speaker and how much (if at all) he was familiar with Hindi). This is why it is sometimes written as 'lac' (giving it a hard 'k' sound).
A Scotsman might be able to use the guttural 'ch' sound, as in the word 'loch', which English does not have. This might be somewhat closer to the Hindi pronunciation but still not exact!
