If Roman numerals are printed around the perimeter of the clock face with the base of each numeral on the same circle, as opposed to printing the numerals horizontally, then the numerals towards the bottom are harder to read because they are nearly upside down. This makes it harder to distinguish quickly between IV and VI. One solution is to use IIII instead of IV.
On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
101–110 of 270 posts
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#102> 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…
In the marketplace it was difficult to quickly discriminate between IIII and III as compared with II and III. When you get to 4, you have to start counting whereas with 3 or fewer, you can tell how many there are at a glance. That being said, this change was something that happened later in its history and as mentioned was more heavily done in specific use cases.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
Ha, that's nothin'. The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day calendar (with no leap years) so it drifted by .25 days every year. So after 730 years it's essentially backwards (summer solstice is when winter solstice used to be etc.). After that, it starts coming back into alignment again but takes another 730 years to get there. They used their calendar for so long that it nearly had time to roll over like this twice!
Woah. The change happened over multiple generations but they must have noticed, no?
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years.
> I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years.
This is interesting to me. What does it mean for a country to exist non-continuously? I can understand making the case under some sort of continuity despite dramatic changes in e.g. control of land or type of government. Sort of like a nation-state Ship of Theseus.
But I don't understand how this works under the non-continuous case. If the temporal connection is broken how is it the same entity?
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha, that's nothin'. The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day calendar (with no leap years) so it drifted by .25 days every year. So after 730 years it's essentially backwards (summer solstice is when winter solstice used to be etc.). After that, it starts coming back into alignment again but takes another 730 years to get there. They used their calendar for so long that it nearly had time to roll over like this twice!
Somehow, for the first time ever, I recently heard the idea of the 13 month year and I sort of nodded my head in interest. Then I heard someone breakdown the history of calendars and it really blew my mind. Mainly the amount of thought that went into it and the incredible span of time it was revised and discussed!
The 13 month per calendar year (Mayan calendar) just makes so much sense as a web developer but somehow as a human it also seems hella mundane to have the same 28 day cycle repeated. Maybe that last day of the year party would make up for it though.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#106I 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…
The USA will stop teaching Roman numerals when we stop celebrating the yearly Super Bowl. No time soon.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years.
> I mean... most European countries (modulo some exceptions like Germany) existed (non-continuously) for at least a thousand years. This is interesting to me. What does it mean for a country to exist non-continuously? I can understand making the case under some sort of continuity despite dramatic changes in e.g. control of land or type of government. Sort of like a nation-state Ship of Theseus. But I don't understand…
Poland was occupied by Germany during WWII. The people still considered themselves Poles during this time, and the only reason there wasn't a 'Poland' was because of military strength, so it seems silly to say that early 1939 Poland and late 1944 Poland are different countries because of lack of continuity. Certainly, almost all Poles will tell you the country 'began' (it kind of had a soft start) in 966, and not in 1944.
(Note: there was technically the government-in-exile in London, which you could argue maintained continuity, but I don't think it's necessary so I'm leaving that out of this.)
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha, that's nothin'. The ancient Egyptians used a 365 day calendar (with no leap years) so it drifted by .25 days every year. So after 730 years it's essentially backwards (summer solstice is when winter solstice used to be etc.). After that, it starts coming back into alignment again but takes another 730 years to get there. They used their calendar for so long that it nearly had time to roll over like this twice!
Woah. The change happened over multiple generations but they must have noticed, no?
its always hot there, so no wonder they didn't notice winter shift (joking).
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#109> 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…
Dang that just hit me. They were around for 1 THOUSAND years. I'm an Indian-American, and the country I was born in has only been around since 1947 and America since 1776. In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
We are closer to Cleopatra than Cleopatra was to the building of the pyramids.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#110I had heard that IV might be considered sacrilegious, as the god Jupiter would have once been spelled IVPPITER, as I was used for modern J and V for modern U.
This is the same explanation I was given. In Roman times it was common to only write the first few letters of a word, just enough to be able to extrapolate the full word from the context. IV was a common abbreviation for IVPPITER.