English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In a fun discussion, someone used the sentence

That guy is ballless.

I can see a slang definition on urbandictionary but this led to a question. Are there words with 3 consecutive l's in them (preferably not scientific words, technical words or abbreviations)?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by simchona, Jasper Loy, kiamlaluno, Mitch, Kit Z. Fox Aug 19 '11 at 12:33

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Dear close voter - I dont see how this is "not constructive" - It's asking for a single word if one exists. If not, the question can be ignored. – JoseK Aug 19 '11 at 8:00
I voted to close. This question is "not constructive" because it's not helping you solve a problem, and I don't think it's particularly useful. I am just one person; other people may not agree with me. – simchona Aug 19 '11 at 8:02
I know a sentence with ten of the same word consecutively but I don't know any words with the same letter appearing more than twice in a row. Except for the likes of "aaaaaaarrrgh!" – Waggers Aug 19 '11 at 10:57
Although this question is marked "not constructive," I voted to close because it is a duplicate of another question. I feel this is a more accurate close reason than "not constructive," particularly since it duplicates a question that was not closed. – Kit Z. Fox Aug 19 '11 at 12:35
up vote 0 down vote accepted

I think that this search is quite a good proof that there are no such words that are common.

Do note however that the above search is limiting it to common words, which for onelook means to be found in six dictionaries or more.

Here is list of all results, some of which refer to references that you might consider acceptable, e.g. illlooking

Older Use
1. ugly.
2. sinister.
Origin: 1625–35

share|improve this answer

Edit: All those words listed previously could have been written in a different way, or are actually currently being written in a different way (e.g. "Bull like" or "Bull-like")

I could only find one word that was spelt with three "l's" as it's only spelling:

Quintilllion: According to the French notation, which is used on the Continent and in America, the cube of a million, or a unit with eighteen ciphers annexed; according to the English notation, a number produced by involving a million to the fifth power, or a unit with thirty ciphers annexed.

share|improve this answer
seems even quinillion is valid? – JoseK Aug 19 '11 at 8:17
Neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary is aware of quintilllion. I think it's spurious. – Malvolio Aug 19 '11 at 9:12
Not even the OALD or the NOAD list it. – Alenanno Aug 19 '11 at 11:07
Apparently Webster's Dictionary lists it. – Thursagen Aug 19 '11 at 11:15
If you mean the Merrian-Webster, then it doesn't. – Alenanno Aug 19 '11 at 11:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.