<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What word has the highest Roman numeral value?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/</link>
	<description>Anthropology, linguistics, and prehistory</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:55:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Howland-Bolton</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-515</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Howland-Bolton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:42:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[but surely the IMM in ‘IMMunoCoMproMIseD’, is 1,999 for a total of 4,600?  :-)
rhb]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but surely the IMM in ‘IMMunoCoMproMIseD’, is 1,999 for a total of 4,600?  :-)<br />
rhb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: schrisomalis</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-511</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[schrisomalis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[True, although they&#039;re actually pretty good with scientific terms in listing the major inflected forms.    I&#039;m only able to find one Google hit on &#039;mammatocumuloid&#039;, a jocular usage, not a scientific one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>True, although they&#8217;re actually pretty good with scientific terms in listing the major inflected forms.    I&#8217;m only able to find one Google hit on &#8216;mammatocumuloid&#8217;, a jocular usage, not a scientific one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaston umlaut</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-510</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gaston umlaut]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#039;t forget, the OED doesn&#039;t list all inflected forms, and it does have &#039;mammatocumulus&#039;, of which &#039;mammatocumuloid&#039; would be a predictable and expected inflection.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget, the OED doesn&#8217;t list all inflected forms, and it does have &#8216;mammatocumulus&#8217;, of which &#8216;mammatocumuloid&#8217; would be a predictable and expected inflection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: schrisomalis</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-509</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[schrisomalis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, &#039;immunocompromised&#039; is it, and it would help if I learned to add and give the correct total, which is, as you say, 4602, not 4502.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, &#8216;immunocompromised&#8217; is it, and it would help if I learned to add and give the correct total, which is, as you say, 4602, not 4502.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stirling Westrup</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-508</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stirling Westrup]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hah! I&#039;m pretty sure I found your word: &#039;immunocompromised&#039; for 4602. I found a few higher scorers but I suspect they aren&#039;t words:

HOMOSUMHUMANINILAMEALIENUMPUTO : 5103
  I think this is just a Latin phrase, but I can&#039;t tell for sure as my Latin isn&#039;t good enough. The only Google hits appear to be word lists.

DEMI-MOHAMMEDAN / PSEUDO-MOHAMMEDANSIM : 5001
  These appear to be real words but they have hyphens and so probably don&#039;t count. I did manage to find the latter without the hyphen, but that seemed an unusual usage.

MARIEIMMACULESMOBLATDE / MARIEIMMACULEESEMOBLATDE : 4702
  These appear to be Latin species names and so probably don&#039;t count even if I could find them being used, which I can&#039;t.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hah! I&#8217;m pretty sure I found your word: &#8216;immunocompromised&#8217; for 4602. I found a few higher scorers but I suspect they aren&#8217;t words:</p>
<p>HOMOSUMHUMANINILAMEALIENUMPUTO : 5103<br />
  I think this is just a Latin phrase, but I can&#8217;t tell for sure as my Latin isn&#8217;t good enough. The only Google hits appear to be word lists.</p>
<p>DEMI-MOHAMMEDAN / PSEUDO-MOHAMMEDANSIM : 5001<br />
  These appear to be real words but they have hyphens and so probably don&#8217;t count. I did manage to find the latter without the hyphen, but that seemed an unusual usage.</p>
<p>MARIEIMMACULESMOBLATDE / MARIEIMMACULEESEMOBLATDE : 4702<br />
  These appear to be Latin species names and so probably don&#8217;t count even if I could find them being used, which I can&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: schrisomalis</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[schrisomalis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;s a good one - it is in the OED.  Still one short.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good one &#8211; it is in the OED.  Still one short.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stirling Westrup</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-506</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stirling Westrup]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Best I could find was &#039;dynamometamorphism&#039; at 4501, and I can&#039;t define it, but I do get about 21300 hits on google.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Best I could find was &#8216;dynamometamorphism&#8217; at 4501, and I can&#8217;t define it, but I do get about 21300 hits on google.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: schrisomalis</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-505</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[schrisomalis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It just occurred to me that one interpretation of the phrase &quot;the highest “score” in Roman numerals&quot; would be that the numerals have to occur in order.   In that case, none of the words I&#039;ve found higher than 4000 qualify.  But I think this would be an inane interpretation, so I choose to ignore it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It just occurred to me that one interpretation of the phrase &#8220;the highest “score” in Roman numerals&#8221; would be that the numerals have to occur in order.   In that case, none of the words I&#8217;ve found higher than 4000 qualify.  But I think this would be an inane interpretation, so I choose to ignore it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: schrisomalis</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-504</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[schrisomalis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;d rule (since it&#039;s my game, I get to do so) that it has to appear in the Oxford English Dictionary to qualify, and neither of those are there.  But I like the way you think!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d rule (since it&#8217;s my game, I get to do so) that it has to appear in the Oxford English Dictionary to qualify, and neither of those are there.  But I like the way you think!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaston umlaut</title>
		<link>http://glossographia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/what-word-has-the-highest-roman-numeral-value/#comment-503</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gaston umlaut]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glossographia.wordpress.com/?p=497#comment-503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmm, &#039;antimuhammadanism&#039; would make 4,502, if we can consider that a word. How about &#039;mammatocumuloid&#039;? It&#039;s real (it gets a google hit) and it weighs in at 4,651.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, &#8216;antimuhammadanism&#8217; would make 4,502, if we can consider that a word. How about &#8216;mammatocumuloid&#8217;? It&#8217;s real (it gets a google hit) and it weighs in at 4,651.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
