Support NeoGAF

[Synbios459]

I've seen 4 as IV, and IIII. Is there a correct one, or does it matter?

 

[fart]

latter

 

[Hitokage]

In roman numerics you never have 4 of the same digit written, so only IV is correct.

 

[mattx5]

IV

 

[Error Macro]

latter

You mean the former. IV.

 

[fart]

oh, right, sorry.

dyslexia strikes again

 

[Desperado]

How come every clock w/ roman numerals has 4 as IIII, then? It's always bothered me.

 

[Error Macro]

How come every clock w/ roman numerals has 4 as IIII, then? It's always bothered me.

I have never seen a clock with Roman numerals have 4 as IIII. Unless it was some cheap ass clock made in a foriegn country where they didn't understand Roman numerals, they're never made with a IIII.

 

[lochnesssnowman]

Can't say I've ever seen 4 represented as IIII. Always been IV.

 

[jenov4]

I've never seen IIII either. You're on your own there.

 

[p_xavier]

I have never seen a clock with Roman numerals have 4 as IIII. Unless it was some cheap ass clock made in a foriegn country where they didn't understand Roman numerals, they're never made with a IIII.

For many old clocks, the 4 is always represented by a IIII, I've never seen a clock with a IV actually. But IV is the correct numeral representation.

 

[Desperado]

Yes, all of those theories have been mentioned. But the one not mentioned in the last post is the one that strikes me (four times) as the most likely: Classicists who have studied old Roman inscription of marble monuments etc. say that IIII was very often, perhaps predominantly, the form that was used in classical times. In a book picturing hundreds of tower clock dials, I found that about 95+% of them were in the IIII form. Interestingly, though, the most famous tower clock in the world, Big Ben, uses the IV form. There is also a hypothesis that the first clocks to use the IV form were clocks which had the rare feature of "Roman Striking." This used two bells, a higher pitch bell representing a one and a lower pitch bell representing a five. Thus four o'clock would be struck by one stroke of the small bell followed by one stroke of the big bell; six would be struck by one stroke of the big bell followed by one stroke of the small bell. This is a very efficient system, but died out almost entirely in the early 18th c..

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/faq/iiii.html

eh.

 

[X5z]

I just checked Wheelock's Latin, the book we used in college, and in the appendix it lists four as both IIII and IV.

 

[bionic77]

How the hell did romans ever do any sort of mathematics. Thank god for the Arabic numeral system we currently use today. A friend of mine who is a math major told me about some other system that is even easier to use then the Arabic Numeral system.

 

[sc0la]

I have seen a clock with IIII in a McDonalds once. haha

 

[Kuramu]

i can't imagine doing math with roman numerals. speaking of easier numbering systems, it's probably too late, but i think we should switch to base 8. dividing numbers in half becomes so much easier, and it's easier to visually pick out groups of 8

 

[sc0la]

speaking of easier numbering systems, it's probably too late, but i think we should switch to base 8.

You are going to have to wait for the apocalyptic aftermath of WWIII to institute something like that.

edit: shit we can't even get us Americans to use the metric system.

 

[Mashing]

I've seen a clock with IV as IIII... Bugged me too

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Final Fantasy VII had a clock with IIII in it. That really bugged me, since I figured if anyone should be decent at the Roman numerals it would be them. However, then I heard the explanations like those already givne here.

 

[LakeEarth]

Yes, I own a clock that says IIII on it instead of IV. It's just how they wrote it... not worth breaking our heads over.

 

[Guzim]

If you don't learn roman numerals, you'll never know the date certain motion pictures were copyrighted.

 

[LakeEarth]

If you don't learn roman numerals, you'll never know the date certain motion pictures were copyrighted.

The obvious Simpsons quote! How did I miss that!?!

 

[Error Macro]

Well, color me badd. I didn't know the story behind the IIII business.

 

[yoshifumi]

rocky v + rocky ii = rocky vii adrien's revenge.

 

[iapetus]

From Straight Dope:

Lord knows I hate to be a wimp about these things, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to fall back on that old standby: they do it that way because that's the way they've always done it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier.

Many clock historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance, since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial. (Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble holding its own in this respect.)

The only problem with this theory is that the Romans apparently never used IV--it's a relatively modern invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time.

My friend David Feldman, in his book "Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise," cites an expert who says medieval clockmakers used IIII so as not to confuse the illiterate. You could count, "One, two, three, four! Hey, it's four o'clock!" Whereas having to subtract I from V to arrive at the same result was beyond your mental capabilities.

Well, maybe. But let's think about this. The peasants couldn't handle IV, but somehow the IX for 9 posed no problems? Did only literate people go out after eight o'clock? Actually, as I read Dave more closely, he seems to be saying that at one time clockmakers used VIIII for 9. OK, but why are we using IIII and IX NOW?

Tragically, we may never know the truth. History can be like that.

Dear Cecil:

I was surprised by your wishy-washy answer regarding the rationale for using the Roman numerals "IIII" on clocks instead of "IV."

Long ago I read somewhere (L. M. Boyd?) that, not having a taste for hurled lightning bolts, the Romans were loath to offend the gods' head honcho by daring to place the first two letters of his name (IVPITER in their primitive, pre-U, pre-J script) on a clock face. Accordingly they plumped for the four-eyes.

Why the letters would be so offensive I do not recall, but knowing how touchy the gods were, I suppose the clockmakers just figured there was no point taking chances. --E.L.F., San Antonio, Texas

Dear E.:

Fine, fine. Just one problem. THE ROMAN DIDN'T HAVE CLOCKS! They had sundials, and I suppose--although unfortunately Little Ed prematurely cleaned out the "Timekeeping devices, ancient" GIF file--that they may have used IIII instead of IV to identify the fourth hour.

But European clockmakers a thousand years later were under no obligation to do the same, belief in IVPITER having pretty much bit the bag. Maybe they did anyhow, out of some sense that it wasn't wise to buck tradition.

Maybe they just thought IIII was the proper way to style a Roman "4," the modern "subtractive" method (IV) not yet having fully kicked in.

Or maybe they just though IIII made for a more aesthetically pleasing configuration of numbers.

The point is we don't know, and given that clockmakers had better things to do than keep notes on such minutiae, we may never know. What I am trying to do is TEACH YOU PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH FREAKING AMBIGUITY!

 

[Willco]

Roman numerals?! They never even tried to teach us that in school…. OK, think, Bart. Where have you seen Roman numerals before? I know: Rocky V. That was the fifth one! So, Rocky 5 [points to V], plus Rocky 2 [points to II], equals Rocky 7 [points to VII], Adrian’s Revenge!

 

[Hitokage]

Doh, guess those crazy romans made an exception with IIII.