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. -
