Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

museum.seiko.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 270 posts

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#131

Post by selcuka »

nine_k wrote: post #117
staplung wrote: post #73

Earlier 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!

My favorite factoid about ancient Egypt is that Cleopatra, the last pharaon queen of Egypt, lived much closer to the time when humans landed on Moon than to the time when the great pyramids were built.

Another fun fact is that mammoths weren't extinct yet when the pyramids were built.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#132

Post by JdeBP »

Symbiote wrote: post #44
coffeebeqn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was “taught” them in history class I think but I can hardly make sense of anything beyond 100

In Britain the end credits for BBC programmes would finish with the final line: © BBC MCMXCVI I can generally figure them out before the line has hit the top of the screen. Of course, it was much easier a few years later: © BBC MM or now © BBC MMXXIV

Having been amused by the headlined tiny factlet about clock faces when I was a child, I observe that the pseudish BBC copyright declaration system is, apart from the odd regnal number in law citations and apart from 19th century hymnals, pretty much my only significant exposure to Roman numerals through my entire life.

The last time I even saw a clock face with Roman numerals, it was when clearing the house of a person who had died.

The HHGTTG in the 1980s was sarcastic about digital watches being thought a pretty neat idea by humans, but they have definitely caught on. I have three clocks within view right now as I type this, one on an answer 'phone, and they are all digital readouts. None of them has an analogue option.

Fun fact: The pseudish BBC copyright declaration system did not begin until the middle 1970s. Before then, copyright years were in Indian numerals. In contrast to all of the earlier discussion on this page about the age and length of the Roman Empire, this particular practice post-dates the U.K.'s accession into the EEC and the U.K.'s conversion to decimal coinage.

Another fun fact: It isn't solely the BBC, in fairness. ITV companies did this back then, too. Granada's Crown Court has Roman numerals in the copyright year in its end credits, for just one example.

   GRANADA
   Colour Production
   © Granada UK MCMLXXVIII

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#133

Post by Ma8ee »

brandensilva wrote: post #105
owlninja wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only disadvantage I can see is that you’d have your birthday in the same day of the week every year. If you are born on a Monday, you’ll celebrate on a Monday every year in your life.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#134

Post by JdeBP »

ghaff wrote: post #13
aidenn0 wrote: post #12

It'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.

Or, rather, our idea of what the standard was, skewed as it is by survivorship bias and coming centuries after the fact, is superficial and wrong.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#135

Post by bell-cot »

rocqua wrote: post #125
nine_k wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite factoid about ancient Egypt is that Cleopatra, the last pharaon queen of Egypt, lived much closer to the time when humans landed on Moon than to the time when the great pyramids were built.

Also, Cleopatra considered herself Greek (or rather hellinistic) and had the lineage to prove that. She is remembered fondly because she was decently respectful of her Egyptian subjects, but that was mostly in contrast to her predecessors.

> She is remembered fondly because...

From accounts by professional ancient historians, that "fact" may mostly be PR spin and "rule of cool" myth. For instance:

https://acoup.blog/2023/05/26/collections-on-the-reign-of-cl...

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#137

Post by croes »

ghostly_s wrote: post #23

IMHO there's an obvious reason not mentioned: due to their position on the dial and convention IV and VI would typically be depicted upside down, increasing the likelihood of confusing them—particularly with a semi-literate populace.

So why would IV and VI a problem and IX and XI not?

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#138

Post by scns »

rocqua wrote: post #128
rdlw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This (and most other examples here) could just as easily be explained by nationalism. specifically nationalist projects to claim a much older heritage for the current nation state, to legitimize the current nation, and to give it a glorious and hard fought past so people will be proud of their country. Personally I think a lot of the idea of countries having existed 'for a long time' is the result of these nationalis…

> This (and most other examples here) could just as easily be explained by nationalism.

Tribalism?

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#139

Post by leononame »

selcuka wrote: post #131
nine_k wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite factoid about ancient Egypt is that Cleopatra, the last pharaon queen of Egypt, lived much closer to the time when humans landed on Moon than to the time when the great pyramids were built.

Another fun fact is that mammoths weren't extinct yet when the pyramids were built.

Woah that's insane. I remember there was a reddit thread about these things and one nugget was that the Oxford University was built before the Aztec Empire existed.

Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV

#140

Post by praptak »

derstander wrote: post #104
mik1998 wrote: post #90

Earlier 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…

I can speak of Poland which had a discontinuity of 123 years. For most practical purposes Poland 1918 was not Poland 1795. It had none of the military alliances nor administrative obligations, just a new country out of nothing.

The only continuity was in the collective mind of people who identified as Polish and grabbed the opportunity to fight and (re-)establish their own country.

Now if you look at the continuity of ideas, it gets pretty philosophical so we could leave it to philosophers... if it wasn't for the fact that people use the ideas to justify wars. I don't have a confident answer for continuity between "being Polish in 1795" and "being Polish in 1918".

Post reply on HN