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 (IIII, XXXX and CCCC)[9] continued to be used, including in compound numbers like 24 (XXIIII),[10] 74 (LXXIIII),[11] and 490 (CCCCLXXXX).[12] The additive forms for 9, 90, and 900 (VIIII,[9] LXXXX,[13] and DCCCC[14]) have also been used, although less often. The two conventions could be mixed in the same document or inscription, even in the same numeral. For example, on the numbered gates to the Colosseum, IIII is systematically used instead of IV, but subtractive notation is used for XL; consequently, gate 44 is labelled XLIIII."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Origin
As for clock faces, the explanation that I always heard was that it simplified the manufacturing process to use IIII rather than IV; something about making better use of materials to have one fewer V and one more I.
In terms of "empires" that were founded, its crazy how young our modern societies are compared to Rome.
Truly boggles the mind.
Hmm but India has existed in the form of multiple state entities that changed every hundred years or so for much longer than the 1k years.
The Roman empire was also fragmented before its creation, and after. Look at how many Italian states divided the peninsula before the 19th century.
Our modern notion of "country" is only a couple hundred years old.
The Roman empire was the most unified state entity for a millenium. But their idea of unified was different from ours.
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...
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
The Wikipedia citation for 9 is Commentarii de bello Gallico (Julius Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War), which interestingly comes from around the same timeframe (first century BC, toward the end of the Roman Republic).
VIIIIX
For each clock, you make 4 of these, and split each block into numbers the following way:
V IIII I X
VI III IX (mirror the IX for 11)
VII II IX
VIII IIX
This lets you mass produce watch numbers with a minimum of wasted material.
Also 12 needs to be mirrored I think.
Otherwise lgtm.
"Somebody thought IV was not easily understandable because it resembled VI..." (in paragraph 2)
So why use a numeral at all? Well, there's always those people who will think that it is obviously wrong not to have numbers on a measuring instrument. Also, in early modern times, clocks were expensive items and expected to be ornate, especially as they were not all that good at keeping time.
if the device is upside down it is evident and I don’t even try to read it, I right the clock or take off and restrap the watch.
Thinking about it though. It sort of is cultural/historical trivia. How many hours do you spend in school drilling how Roman numerals are constructed rather than teaching something else. I suppose it's nice enough for those who encounter them when traveling. But pretty far on the not-essential end of the axis.
But I'd say maybe not waste too much time on it. Kids will play with whatever they play with, you can lead them to water but cannot make them drink. We just happened to enjoy playing with number systems, and it helped a lot that our school introduced us to several for us to play with initially.
We do base twelve in our household. It's easier to hold in my head than base thirty-six.
Edit: I was halfway joking but I'm noticing that the 12-hour clock is very elegantly conveyed using base-36 hand gestures. The "hands" of the clock bring in this case literal human hands.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senary#Finger_counting
The only really bad thing about Roman numerals is non-positionality, and it kinda follows naturally from them being merely transcriptions of the states of the 5+2-beads abacus that was popular back then. If only the norm back then were the 10-beads abacus... alas, the history is what it is.
Verbally, the system seems to go thousand -> lakh -> crore -> thousand crore -> lakh crore, but then stop there, rarely extending to crore crore or inducting any farther.
Meanwhile commas don't seem to follow the verbal convention - instead showing up every two digits even after a crore, so a thousand crore looks more like ten hundred crore, and a lakh crore looks more like ten hundred hundred crore.
In her opinion it's probably partly related to Covid too because although they do still teach it in school (at least here in the UK), there's a cohort of kids who missed a lot of basic stuff like this during lockdowns. So I think here in the UK kids around the age of 11-12 really struggle with this specifically because roman numerals and analogue clocks is something they typically would learn around the age of 7-8.
© BBC MCMXCVI
© BBC MM
© BBC MMXXIV⸻
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.
אבגדהוזחט - count one through nine
יכלמנסעפצ - count ten through ninety
קרשת - count one hundred through four hundred
so תו would be 406 while טו is 9+6=15
I'd be surprised if that was the reason, but it's kind of neat.
I II III IIII
V VI VII VIII
IX X XI XII
On the other hand, they had semi-standard numerals for all sorts of odd fractions like 1⁄288 = ℈.
Then we went home and noticed all the clocks in the house had IIII.
That said, I always go with Arabic numerals, so it's a moot point for me, practically speaking.
This contradicts examples that Wikipedia has of subtractive notation during the height of the Roman Empire (though it's not clear to me when "IV" became the accepted standard form).
Maybe it was The Seventh Guest? Or Myst?
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.
I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. If it hadn't been Roman numerals it would have been something else.
Teachers are much the same as cops. Some go into those fields because they genuinely want to help people. Other go into them because they enjoy having power.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201115002205/https://www.washi...
For example, Adolf Hitler's grandfather was called Hiedler, not Hitler and the spelling change was the result of his father's name, Alois Hitler, being changed later in his life after first being recorded as Aloys Schicklgruber (the family name being that of his mother rather than father as the fatherhood was apparently initially contested).
Or for orthography you just need to look at any historical text pre-19th century or so and you'll find plenty of oddities that often change regionally or even between writers in the same region.
Now expand this to the time scale and area of the Roman Empire/Republic and it's amazing most of it was somehow coherent over time. Actually as far as I recall, the "subtractive" style was only used consistently in the Middle Ages. Another odd variant I've seen is "IIX" instead of "VIII". And let's not talk about how larger numbers were represented or shenanigans like the "long I" instead of "II".
I didn't realize the subtractive style really dates to the middle ages, but that certainly seems consistent with the coins - I checked a bunch more and none seem to use it.
edit: sometimes I wonder if arithmetic arose simply from naming numbers
And it is more like our current number system arose because it makes arithmetic so much simpler.
The first time I went abroad, I was in a wine caveau and paying the teller. When she said the price, my mind went blank -- pitch black. She said "five" impatiently in every language I spoke -- even latin -- and I kept wondering, yes, but what and five?
You'd think it would be easier to remember given that I had to change it less than a week ago.
Here is the uneditorialized headline. Especially it is called dial plate, not clock face.
Has someone been to this place? Is it worth a visit?
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.
Doc Brown can’t be wrong:
https://clickamericana.com/wp-content/uploads/Back-to-the-Fu...
IIIIV IIIV IIV IV V VI VII VIII VIIII
