Thread: roman numerals

i thought it was written iv and from my school days i never known it to be 1111 thats a newey to me. lloyd.

In Roman numerology, IV is technically the correct sequence for four, but in Roman times, IV was also the abreviation of the Roman God Jupiter (then spelled IVPPITER) and they simply adopted IIII to avoid any confusion.

IV is the norm these days, except on clock faces which take their layout from sundials which were around in Roman times and therefore showed the sequence IIII.

BTW bluegum 30, 1111 is one thousand, one hundred and eleven, not IIII. It makes me smile when I see George the third written as 'George 111' which would make him George the one hundred and eleventh - I don't think so!

Thanks WW. Very informative as usual. I can now cross that off the list of stuff I don't know.
(Its a LOOOONG list!)

I seem to recall being told that King Henry VIII had the clock faces and literature changed from IV to IIII because of confusion between IV and VI?

May be rubbish?

I haven't heard that one before, but it's unlikely because IIII was adopted long before Henry VIII came to the throne.

Originally Posted by pugwash

I don't know if this has been asked before, but I've noticed that the number 4 on a clock is always in the form of IIII rather than IV.
Does anyone know why?

Hi pugwash

I am in the process of restoring a 1930-ish HAC (also known as HAU or the Crossed Arrow brand from its trademark) wall clock, which I "fixed" about thirty years ago...it never ran well after that and I recently stumbled across it again.

Funnily enough, I only just the other day noticed it has IIII in stead of IV on the dial and thought that was unusual..

Anyways, as mentioned, I have grown a bit more patient over the last 30 years, and have completely stripped the clock, cleaned it and am in the process of getting new springs. I have oiled the wooden case and its starting to look great again.

Cheers

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_vs._IV


IIII vs. IVThe notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.

Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and E.6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV (925 -1925).

Calendars and clocks


Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:

• Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[3]
• Using the standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confuseable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and the VI; and IX and XI. Since the first pair are additionally upside down on the face, an added level of confuseability would be introduced. Better, then, to make greater character distinction between them by using IIII and VI
• The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the character IV would not.
• With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty I's, four V's, and four X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five I's, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
  
  • V IIII IX
  • VI II IIX
  • VII III X
  • VIII I IX

The IIX and one of the IX’s are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen I's, five V's, and four X's, requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.

• Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.

(I like the last two options, but more likely it originated long before with the Romans.)
IIII is also used in Tarot cards