According to <http://www2.inetdirect.net/~charta/Roman_numerals.html#footnote4>, the Romans themselves rarely used the subtraction principle and so would have primarily used IIII rather than IV. -- Richard
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, tony moss wrote: >Richard Langley wrote: > >>Isn't IIII the clockmaker's IV? Apparently introduced since it "balances" >>VIII although that's not a theory that is without problems since other >>numbers on the clock face are not balanced. While not necessarily >>authoratative, see >><http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/clockface.htm>. > >Thanks Richard. An interesting website which gives the opposite message >to the one which was suggested to me. > >I suppose my question should have been - What form was actually used by >the Romans in their own time? > >Tony M. >- > =============================================================================== Richard B. Langley E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geodetic Research Laboratory Web: http://www.unb.ca/GGE/ Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering Phone: +1 506 453-5142 University of New Brunswick Fax: +1 506 453-4943 Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 Fredericton? Where's that? See: http://www.city.fredericton.nb.ca/ =============================================================================== -
