I can't say for sure if this is true, but I did read that the Romans used
instead of the usual IV because IV were the first two letters in the
Latin spelling of Jupiter (that is the principle Roman deity). Such
reverence and/or superstition around the name of a deity aren't uncommon,
Somewhere I have read that was used instead of IV
in communities where the people could more easily
count to 4 than to subtract 1 from 5. It may seem
absurd to our modern minds to even imagine such a
situation, but understanding of simple things like
subtraction has not always been as
asked is why do English clocks with
Roman numerals have (instead of IV) at the '4'
position and most Continental and American clocks appear to
have the correct IV?
Was this an error on the part of some early clockmaker
which was continued eventually to become a tradition or is
there some
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A question I am often asked is why do English clocks with
Roman numerals have (instead of IV) at the '4'
position and most Continental and American clocks appear to
have the correct IV?
This is something which has been around
I don't consider the use of either or IV an error but rather a choice
to use a specific representation.
Various reasons have been given, including unsubstantiated anecdotes, for
the preference of vs. IV on clock dials. On clock dials preference is
often given to the aesthetics
---
Dr J R Davis
Flowton, UK
52.08N, 1.043E
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sundial mailing list sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Sent: 21 July 2000 08:50
Subject: at IV
I've been following the discourse
Hi,
as Gordon wrote, the sign III instead of IV isn't an error but only another
way to write the same number: 4.
Usually it is correct to say that Romans used the classical form of IV
(subtractive) but in medieval times writers preferred the sign that was
additive form, the same happened
