On Jan 8, 2013 1:08 PM, Frédéric Grosshans wrote:
Roman numerals have always been more complex than the standard (modern)
way we've been taught to, and their use spans several millennia, over
which may variation have occurred. If you look at wiipedia's table for
middle age and Renaissance,
Le 08/01/2013 01:26, Ben Scarborough a écrit :
This isn't directly related to Unicode, but I thought this would be a
good place to ask.
Specifically, I'm curious about figure 14 (Gordon 1982) from WG2 N3218
[http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/N3218.pdf], which says:
Whereas our so-called
This isn't directly related to Unicode, but I thought this would be a
good place to ask.
Specifically, I'm curious about figure 14 (Gordon 1982) from WG2 N3218
[http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/N3218.pdf], which says:
Whereas our so-called Arabic numerals
are ten in number (0–9), the Roman
I'm gonna take a wild stab here and assume that this is Q as the medieval
Latin abbreviation for quingenti, which usually means 500, but also gets
glossed just as a big number, as in milia quingenta thousands upon
thousands. Maybe some medieval scribe substituted a Q for |V| (with an
overscore
4 matches
Mail list logo