it can go either way
On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
41–50 of 270 posts
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#42I knew that both forms were common because I was lucky enough to have a Latin teacher who assigned as extra credit "write this number in Roman numerals" and also accepted additive notation for this reason. He even argued that IIIIIIIIII could be a valid if cheesy alternative to X based on very early texts, but this might have just been a bluff. I never tried to write 123 as IIIII...III.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.
the point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory
Wouldn't that also work with IXIVIII on the die? How do you print IX with yours?
An improvement would be IXIVIII actually, then all combinations can be located in that string.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#44I 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” 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
© BBC MM
© BBC MMXXIVRe: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#45As kibwen said, there wasn't a clear "standardized" form. Most rules were invented much later. "IC" was perfectly understood by Romans that would have used "MXMII" without a second thought.
The reason of "IIII" is of usability for clocks that can be seen from different angles. Six can only be written as "VI" so "IV" is changed to "IIII" to prevent confusion.
Of course there are all kind of urban legends and fake stories of kings requesting the number be written this or that way.
In case someone doesn't know, a fun fact: "I" is one finger, "V" represent the open hand (think pinky and thumb in angle) and "X" both open hands united. So 1, 5, 10.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
the point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory
Wouldn't that also work with IXIVIII on the die? How do you print IX with yours? An improvement would be IXIVIII actually, then all combinations can be located in that string.
> How do you print IX with yours?
You rotate XI 180 degrees.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#47IMHO 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.
I have always believed this to be the reason.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#48I 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.
There is a similar thing with Hebrew numerals¹ where 15 and 16 are usually written as תו and תז to avoid what would otherwise be forms of the name of God.
⸻
1. The Hebrew numeral system, like the Greek numeral system is an almost-decimal system in that different letters are used for each of the different values, but the letters change by place value as well as by their individual value, so, e.g., 21 is written כא where כ stands for 20 and א stands for 1.
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.
the point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory
Oh that’s clever!
Re: On clock faces, 4 is Expressed as IIII, not IV
#50This seems like a much better fleshed out exploration of this subject: https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use...
I like the literacy explanation. If reading letters was hard enough for enough people, why add extra complexity by introducing a subtractive system? But as the populous becomes more educated and there’s less concern about reading ability, it makes sense that the next domino to fall is “boy those 4 i’s in a row sure are hard to distinguish”. Complexity gets progressively introduced — that to me sounds like lots of tech adoption curves.