PDA

View Full Version : Roman Numerals

CrowbarTK Hullo
7th June 2002, 19:45
(numerals might be spelled wrong...)

I've noticed on many clocks with roman numerals that 4 is done wrong. 1-12 in roman numerals should be like this:

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

Four, IV, on clocks/watches is usually done IIII. There's no number like that! and i'm sure poeple know how roman numerals are supposed to be done! if not, they're a stupid idiot

kljs
7th June 2002, 19:47
IV

tjb2004
7th June 2002, 19:48
http://www.thepackage.org/jorah/Idiot.jpg

Vie
7th June 2002, 19:49
I write the date in RN's it pises off Kavnar

Bop
7th June 2002, 19:50
I own quite a few watches and all the ones with roman numerals have the 4 written "incorrectly", I've always wondered why that was like that myself.

I assume that both methods are correct.... perhaps it is so that we do not confuse IV with VI.

I have no clue, really. I'm glad you brought it up though- I would like to know.

Xerxes
7th June 2002, 19:56
Um, Shoddy Asian Reproductions? (What the Japanese call a "Rorex";) )

Bop
7th June 2002, 19:56
Here's something I found, the 4 (IIII) phenomena is discussed briefly just after the table ---->

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RomanNumeral.html

[edit= here is another site] http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm
(in the "Use of Roman Numerals" section it is explained a little)

fish
7th June 2002, 20:57
It always been and always will be IV for me. :)

CrowbarTK Hullo
7th June 2002, 21:10
yup

i didn't expect to gte this many replys so fast

eleet-2k2
7th June 2002, 21:25
Originally posted by Boplicity
I own quite a few watches and all the ones with roman numerals have the 4 written "incorrectly", I've always wondered why that was like that myself.

I assume that both methods are correct.... perhaps it is so that we do not confuse IV with VI.

I have no clue, really. I'm glad you brought it up though- I would like to know. I think it is done for 'class'. Beats me why though.

My watches and clocks display 4 = IV.

CrowbarTK Hullo
7th June 2002, 21:38
they do? i've never seen a vlock/watch in roman numerals that displayed 4 as IV

apollos
7th June 2002, 21:49
Only a few months ago did I master VI and IV :D

I is less than V so it must be 4
V is more than I so it must be 5.

before I got them confused

Roman numerals kick ass! :)

They make things look important! :igor:

Bop
7th June 2002, 21:52
One of the site's mentioned that it balances
the dial better when it is written as IIII.

btw, Big Ben is written in the classic IV form...

QHOBBES
7th June 2002, 22:41
IV is the correct because in RM you always use the least amount of
characters. I.E. IX is the correct form of 9 instead of VIIII

ujay
7th June 2002, 23:29
Numerals are completely superfluous anyway. As long as the top of the dial is marked, there is no need for any numbers at all, a series of dots will do. Langlands & Bell have produced timepieces using the 3 letter codes for airports - 'Frozen Sky'

UJ

CrowbarTK Hullo
8th June 2002, 00:08
Originally posted by Inatlantis
Only a few months ago did I master VI and IV :D

I is less than V so it must be 4
V is more than I so it must be 5.

before I got them confused

Roman numerals kick ass! :)

They make things look important! :igor:

i mastered them a long time ago ^_~

i even use roman numerals in my schoolwork... @.@

patroclus22
8th June 2002, 00:45
My grandfather has a clock that uses IIII. I've actually wondered why they didn't use "IV" for many years now...

i even use roman numerals in my schoolwork...

When I was in the 5th grade, I did an entire math assignment in Mayan numerals. That really pissed Sister Augustine off...:D

DJ Shredder
8th June 2002, 00:50
One of the clocks in my house is in Roman Numerals, and it's IIII, I've always used IV, however.

Rocky Raccoon
8th June 2002, 01:23
Roman numerals are I III III VII

:D :D :D

c2R
8th June 2002, 10:00
I think the IIII is also correct, and is to do with tallying (i.e. 5 being IIII with a line through to group it).

I've got clocks and watches with both methods used... but then again, does it really matter?

Bilbo Baggins
8th June 2002, 11:24
I have never seen a clock face with 4 written as IIII.

Spiffed
8th June 2002, 13:55
you got me curious, so i had to look, 3 clocks in my house are IV one other is IIII

personally i think they do it on watches so you can look at the thing upside down... and for us dyslexic people

ElChevelle
8th June 2002, 14:11

Look at the number four on a clock face that uses Roman numerals. If the clock is made correctly then the Roman numeral four is wrong. The standard and correct way to write the Roman numeral four is "IV," but the traditional way to show it on a clock face is "IIII." Legend has it that a clock was made for a British king. When he saw the clock he mis- informedly corrected the clock maker who re-did the clock face to show a "IIII" instead of an "IV" thus not risking offending the king. Other clock makers followed suit so as not to embarass the king. Now it is the traditional way to make clocks.

CrowbarTK Hullo
8th June 2002, 17:03
-.-

sgtfuzzbubble011
9th June 2002, 05:44
Blargh... I've always written it the correct way. IV. :)

Print
9th June 2002, 05:49
Well i'm pretty sure it's IV, ahem, absoluty sure, maybe it's just preferred with the creators. Vase, vahs. IIII, IV. Just a choice, didn't like IV.:p

pixiefied
9th June 2002, 06:30

liquidmotion
9th June 2002, 06:38
Originally posted by Boplicity
I own quite a few watches and all the ones with roman numerals have the 4 written "incorrectly", I've always wondered why that was like that myself.

I assume that both methods are correct.... perhaps it is so that we do not confuse IV with VI.

I have no clue, really. I'm glad you brought it up though- I would like to know.

i have all digital watches, makes for the much easier telling of time :) (j/k).

i've never seen a watch with the IIII "spelling". strange.

CrowbarTK Hullo
9th June 2002, 22:10
hrm...it seems that some watches/clocks do have the right way (IV), but i have never seen one like that....