Live data from Hacker News

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

museum.seiko.co.jp

161–170 of 270 posts

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

#161
post #10

I 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 l…

It is certainly good to learn, that there _are_ different number systems. Such knowledge can only serve to potentially at some point spark ideas. I see roman numbers as related to a unary system for example. In computer stuff we learn about binary, octal, and hexadecimal representation too (even if they are something else to decimal system than roman numbers are to it). It will not hurt mathematical ability and thought to know such things.

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

#163
post #160

In Latin, sometimes numbers have synonyms, like 18 (two from twenty or eight and ten). In my mind, the Roman system was very obvious. Then I learned to read a little French, and had genuine curiosity about the reasoning behind this soixante-dix-neuf character. edit: sometimes I wonder if arithmetic arose simply from naming numbers

French used to have a sort of base 20 numbering system. And it is more like our current number system arose because it makes arithmetic so much simpler.

Like the British used to have shillings?

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

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True...but "last pharaon queen of Egypt" may be misleading, for those unfamiliar with the history: Cleopatra was a Macedonian Greek, descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals. Alexander had conquered Egypt about 3 centuries earlier...taking it from the Persians, who had previously conquered the final "native" XXX Dynasty... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom And giving Egypt's foreign conquero…

To her credit though she was one of the few Ptolemaic rules of Egypt who even bothered learning the Egyptian language

Yes-ish. Quoting a bit from Dr. Bret Devereaux, whose take on Cleopatra VII I linked a bit further down:

> Let’s start with languages, because I think this fact can be presented in a somewhat distorted way. The language of the Ptolemaic court was Greek, initially Macedonian Greek (the Macedonians had a pronounced accent), though Plutarch notes that some of the later Ptolemies had lost their Macedonian accent (Plut. Ant. 27.3-4). Cleopatra, by contrast, was the first of the Ptolemies to bother to learn Egyptian (which should tell you something about the character of Ptolemaic rule; imagine if King Charles was the first English king since George I and kings from the House of Hanover to bother to learn English). The problem with this fact is that it is incomplete, presenting Cleopatra as a Greek-speaker who learned the language of her people out of sincere devotion, but that’s not what Plutarch says. Plutarch says:

>> She could turn [her voice] easily to whichever language she wished and she conversed with few barbarians entirely through an interpreter, and she gave her decisions herself to most of them, including Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabians, Syrians, Medes and Parthians. She is said to have learned the languages of many others also, although the kings before her did not undertake to learn the Egyptian language, even though some of them had abandoned the Macedonian dialect.16

> So let’s unpack that. This isn’t a native speaker of Greek who learned just the language of her subjects, but a spectacularly skilled linguist who learned a lot of different languages, quite regardless of if she ruled the people in question. Running through the list, she evidently learned Ethiopian, the language of the people on her southern border, the speech of the Troglodytae, the people who lived on the coast of the Red Sea (a hinterland of her kingdom). The ‘language of the Hebrews’ here is probably Aramaic rather than Hebrew (which would also cover much of Syria), while the language of the Medes and Parthians might mean both Old Persian and the Parthian language. To which we must add Egyptian, implied by that last sentence; it also seems fairly clear Cleopatra knew at least some Latin.17 This is part of why I find arguments that use Cleopatra’s knowledge of Egyptian as strong proof either for her Egyptian ancestry or deep attachment to Egypt less than fully compelling; she was surely not Parthian and did not have a deep attachment to Parthia, but she learned their language too. Again, there’s not nothing here, but it’s not a slam dunk either.

SO - literally truth that she learned Egyptian. But extremely sketchy to extrapolate from that fact to any sort of "she cared more about her subjects" conclusion.

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

#167
post #61
post #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…

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.

Imagine being able to tell stories that were passed down to you, mouth to ear, for 20,000 years!

Sadly, that civilization has perished in the last 100 years.

Still, Australians are teaching the languages in their schools now. Finally. We might still yet hear a whisper...

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

#168
post #95
post #10

I 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 don't know about now, but ~25 years ago when I was in kindergarten one the things they focused on teaching was telling time and reading clocks, which came with reading Roman numerals.

Reading analog clocks was a pretty basic life skill, even for a young kid back then. To which, as you say, Roman numerals were often at least an adjunct. (Having said that I have no idea when I learned Roman numerals.)

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

#169

I guess I have only seen other dials than the article describes, where the 4 is actually IV. Maybe what the article describes is a regional thing.

I learned Roman numbers in school when I was nine. For me being interested in math it was logical that 4 consecutive symbols are against the rules and it needs to be IV.

When I was 14 my grandmother died we got an old clock and it showed IIII. I came to the conclusion it's a poor piece of craftsmanship, the clockmaker just did not know math. Otherwise clocks with Roman numbers were not common at all where I lived.

The old clock is still in my living room over 40 years later (not in a prominent place, I don't find it impressive anymore like I did when I was younger). When reading this I notice that numbers on the lower half are upside down. Had not paid attention to this for over 40 years.

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

#170
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a country can in some sense be a continuation of a previous one, particularly if it shares the same language and a similar territory. This is the sort of thing that’s true, but only if you don’t think about it deeply. People in England definitely spoke English, but that doesn’t mean that we would be able to understand them. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote one of the first major works of literature in English, but 99.9% of E…

> This is the sort of thing that’s true, but only if you don’t think about it deeply. I have a linguistics degree and a passion for historical linguistics that will result in me talking your ear off about Indo-European ablaut, so this is probably the first time in my life I've ever been accused of failing to think deeply about language variation / change! But I do agree with tsunamifury's comment - what you say is in…

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you thought so. I meant it is a widely held belief among most people. They would feel a stronger affinity for their ancestors from a thousand years ago than for their neighbour, if their neighbour looked different to them.

I meant to say that this idea that the people 1000 years ago being “my people” doesn’t hold up to close inspection. There is no continuity in a meaningful sense if you can’t communicate with them, wouldn’t agree with them on anything even if we could, and couldn’t even find a common activity to do together. They’d be about as alien as a green man from Mars. But it doesn’t matter, because you’re not going to convince people to stop idealising ancestors.

Post reply on HN