How DO you actually say gross in Latin? Anyone?

please?

Not in my dictionary; can't find it on line; but I've sent one of Latin scholar friends an email and will let you know if he comes up with anything.

I was thinking of saying this earlier, but didn't know if it would be that useful: it's highly possible [probable?] that Latin didn't have a word for it.

First reply from BRB:

"I cannot give a definitive answer.

My old 'Complete Oxford English dictionary' for 'gross = twleve dozen'
refers to French 'grosse', Spanish 'grueso', Italian 'grossa', as the
feminine of a word meaning 'big'. It says that the Vulgate has 'grossus'
as the adjective for 'big'. My big White & Riddle Latin dictionary
confirms Souter's 'A glossary of Later Latin' that it has the meaning of
'thick' or 'coarse'. Of course it is not in the 'Oxford Latin dictionary'.
A Google enquiry confirms this derivation after "What is the Latin word for
gross?": you might like to go through the 1,810,000 results for something
other than a derivation. In the light of this I would tentatively go for
'grossa'

I have never satisfactorily settled on the right Latin word for 'a dozen'.
'Duodecim' is twelve. Latin has 'decenus' = ten each. Spanish has 'una
docena' and (for 'a score') 'veintena'. I would therefore back-derive
'duodecena'."

But he has sent the query on to other Latin experts.

... in other words, the idea of a Latin "gross" seems pretty obscure. I imagine it comes from the word meaning large referring to a pack or crate of items. Bearing in mind it is easier to pack things in binary, and dozenal lots, then maybe this is where the name came from.... That is, referring to a crate or load of 144 items, called a "large" or "gross". Eventually this settled on 144, and not, say, 144 and 72, and 96, and 60 etc.

The obvious backformation is (duodecena) grossa, but the fact is the Romans didn't use a word for 'dozen', let alone higher duodecimal powers, for the simple reason they didn't count integers by the dozen. They did have a pretty extensive set of names for duodecimal (and related) subdivisions, though; since they did use twelfths for fractions, especially for subdividing measurement and monetary units. The Romans were practical-minded people, and grouping items into ten-based collectives such as the hundred and the thousand is practical for counting them on fingers, while splitting stuff into twelve-based subdivisions is useful for commerce. So they kept their inherited Indo-European decimal system for counting wholes, but switched to duodecimal for dividing into fractions, as shown in their abaci, numerals and vocabulary. Asking how do you say 'gross' in Latin is like asking how do you say seizaine in English. The Romans simply didn't come up with a name for it because they didn't use twelve as a counting unit; just as the English haven't come up with a name for a group of sixteen because they don't use sixteen as a counting unit, even though several English customary units are divided into sixteenths.

BTW, I would propose the word 'sezen' to fill that lexical gap in English, which will be useful to the many hex fans among computer geeks. By analogy with French douzaine, which through its old form gave English 'dozen', so French seizaine might have given English 'sezen' (pronounced "SEEZ-uhn"). I would also propose the latinization of 'dozen' and 'sezen' as the shortened forms docena and secena, rather than the full forms duodecena and sedecena that are too obviously ten-based, for the same reason we dozenalists prefer the term 'dozenal' over 'duodecimal' (even though etymologically both are decimal-based).

Further comments from others:

Subject: RE: 'Dozen' & 'gross'

1)
C. T. Onions' Oxford Dictionary of English etymology traces "dozen" through the ME "dozein(e)" to the Old French word "dozeine." Onions speculates that "dozeine" was derived from a compound of the suffix "-ena" (as in the Latin decena) with an unattested form "do(t)ze", which was itself derived from another unattested form "dodece," which was derived from "duodecim."

As for "gross," Onions traces it to the 14th century. It is derived from a substantive use of the
French "grosse" (cf. grossus) with "douzaine" understood.

So, it seems we should say dodecena and grossa dodecena and, when using such words, feel that we are authentically speaking like a merchant bargaining on the quay of 9th century Massilia, if not 1st century Ostia.

2)
This would seem to be a natural place to use distributive numerals.
"Twelve each," or "twelve at a time," would be duodênî. A gross (twelve dozen) would be duodeciêns duodênî. "A gross of writing tablets" would be duodeciêns duodênae tabellae.

3)
Your logic leads me to a "purer" [!] 'duodecena' for a dozen. I feel that 'd[u]odecena' can always be understood with 'grossa'. Thus a 'dozen gross' would be 'duodecena grossa' -- or should it be 'duodecena grossarum', or, following M's line of thought, 'duodeciens grossa'?

Thanks a lot! :)

Maybe we could get something out of Roman fractions? As you guys have said, romans did use dozens when coming to fractions.