I collect roman coins, and they also used IIII themselves on at least a couple of types I can think of, and also VIIII instead of IX.
On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
11–20 of 270 posts
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#12It's unclear to me when the (now standard) subtractive form became the standard; there are examples in Roman times of e.g. IIX for 8, and VIIII for 9, both of which would be non-standard today.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#13It's unclear to me when the (now standard) subtractive form became the standard; there are examples in Roman times of e.g. IIX for 8, and VIIII for 9, both of which would be non-standard today.
Like spelling, a lot of things used to be far less standardized.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#14This seems like a much better fleshed out exploration of this subject: https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use...
> ...the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire.
This contradicts examples that Wikipedia has of subtractive notation during the height of the Roman Empire (though it's not clear to me when "IV" became the accepted standard form).
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#15> The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals.
Using "IIII" instead of "IV" isn't even necessarily wrong. Rome was a big empire with a widely-distributed populace that lasted for a thousand years. The usage of numerals changed over time and according to context:
"While subtractive notation for 4, 40 and 400 (IV, XL and CD) has been the usual form since Roman times, additive notation to represent these numbers (IIII, XXXX and CCCC)[9] continued to be used, including in compound numbers like 24 (XXIIII),[10] 74 (LXXIIII),[11] and 490 (CCCCLXXXX).[12] The additive forms for 9, 90, and 900 (VIIII,[9] LXXXX,[13] and DCCCC[14]) have also been used, although less often. The two conventions could be mixed in the same document or inscription, even in the same numeral. For example, on the numbered gates to the Colosseum, IIII is systematically used instead of IV, but subtractive notation is used for XL; consequently, gate 44 is labelled XLIIII."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Origin
As for clock faces, the explanation that I always heard was that it simplified the manufacturing process to use IIII rather than IV; something about making better use of materials to have one fewer V and one more I.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#16[deleted]
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#17I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…
I was taught about Roman numerals in school (mid-90s) but it was a brief thing, maybe a few homework assignments in a larger unit about Roman history. Certainly not hours of drilling. I can read a clock fine, and I can read a date if I spend some time thinking it through. But it's not really a life skill.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#18[flagged]
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#19I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…
I was taught about Roman numerals in school (mid-90s) but it was a brief thing, maybe a few homework assignments in a larger unit about Roman history. Certainly not hours of drilling. I can read a clock fine, and I can read a date if I spend some time thinking it through. But it's not really a life skill.
Not remembering the details, but learning it in the 70s or so, I can look at a Roman date and not immediately grasp the year in terms I'm more familiar with but I can decode it in 10 seconds or so. I assume there was a fair bit of drilling if I remember after all this time. But then I had a couple years of Latin too.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#20I wonder how much Roman numerals are even taught any longer. Maybe 5 years ago now I was traveling with a friend who went to a solid US suburban high school outside of a major city. Younger than me but certainly not young. And she asked me what a date written in Roman numerals was in the numbering system we normally use. I was somewhat floored. Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How m…
I'd say it's good to be exposed to for a short few lessons at a young age. My friends and I found endless fascination with them and enjoyed inventing our own numbering systems. It helped a lot when I had to think in other bases like binary or hexadecimal, because my perspective had been broadened by roman numerals.
But I'd say maybe not waste too much time on it. Kids will play with whatever they play with, you can lead them to water but cannot make them drink. We just happened to enjoy playing with number systems, and it helped a lot that our school introduced us to several for us to play with initially.