Re: Q is a Roman numeral?

2013-01-11 Thread Ben Scarborough
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,

Re: Q is a Roman numeral?

2013-01-08 Thread Frédéric Grosshans
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

Q is a Roman numeral?

2013-01-07 Thread Ben Scarborough
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

RE: Q is a Roman numeral?

2013-01-07 Thread Whistler, Ken
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