Random numeral question
Dawg144
Posts: 670 ✭✭✭
Is there any particular reason why coins tend to use "IIII" as the Roman numeral representation for 4 instead of "IV"? I've noticed this not only for rulers' names, but also for some denominations. I thought it would be interesting if someone knew of a historical basis for this. Thanks!
0
Comments
It's sort of a grey area... like the word GREY itself, for example. Some folks spell it with an "E", the way I do, others spell it with an "A". Either or both are acceptable.
"IV" might be a more modern adaptation, but if I were to make that assumption, one of the wizards here would immediately post a Roman coin that proves me wrong.
I used to wonder about this same thing, having seen "IIII" in use and then looked up at the "IV" on my grandmother's clock.
You are correct, Sir, but it probably happened 1 or 2 thousand years ago.
Many clocks use IIII rather than IV since it balances the VIII on the other side.
I prefer the use of IIII rather than IV when multiplying Roman Numerals, but maybe I need more practice.
"apparently Roman numerals came into use in its fully developed form during the 1st cent. BC. The later numeral shapes [and those we use now] are probably older than the alphabet itself [i assume they mean the latin alphabet]."
theories of origins are from notch counting in sticks and bones, or from Greek letters, and not so much descendent from the latin alphabet itself or even from finger counting patterns (kind of neat)
finger counting might make sense, and may explain why you can do IIII and IV as four, seriously try out those fingers of yours if you have them
ok back to the book:
the first numerals I V X and L are all made with straight characters, evidence to the notch (or cuniform-esque) origin. then as the need for higher numbers came in to being the other numerals were added.
and there is no record of Romans using the M (1000) character
In Byzantine, sometimes the numerals can be found backwards, yet still additive to make the number... example IIIX is 13. and they also started using two other numerals in the system
So if you have Byzantine coins with Roman numerals on them, make sure you've read it correct, right-to-left or left-to-right
<< <i>"IV" might be a more modern adaptation, but if I were to make that assumption, one of the wizards here would immediately post a Roman coin that proves me wrong. >>
I don't know if I qualify as a "wizard", but it doesn't matter - I couldn't find an example of the specific use of "IV" for "4", either.
As far as I'm aware, "IV" for "4" comes about primarily to save space - IV takes a lot less room than IIII, especially when those "I"'s have to be given serifs. It is, however, less intuitively understood, especially as part of a larger number such as DCCLXXIV, where you're mixing up addition and subtraction.
While I couldn't find an ancient example of "IV" for "4" I can, however, show an example of "IIX" for "8" on a coin - and it was demonstrably used for space-conserving reasons.
Sear #1771 (RIC# 59) was issued in the 27th tribunician year of Tiberius (35/6 AD). The coin design was continued into his 28th year, but the reverse legend is so tightly packed that another "I" wouldn't fit. So the dies bearing XXXVII were recarved to read XXXIIX, creating type RIC# 65. I have a badly worn and corroded example of RIC# 65; the recarved "IIX" is the only piece of the legend you can still read clearly on it.
So the Romans were familiar with the concept of subtractive notation - they just preferred not to use it, given a choice.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
<< <i>I prefer the use of IIII rather than IV when multiplying Roman Numerals, but maybe I need more practice. >>
Good heavens, man, what do you do for fun? Juggle chainsaws, lit torches, and sea urchins? My head hurts just thinking about that!
I can read 'em... mostly. With a moment to ponder. Which is more than you can say for a lot of folks, including a number of coin people, surprisingly.
But I'll leave the multiplication of 'em up to you. Ouch.
The french and earlier english have used IV instead of IIII. Seems a little peculiar.
TheKid!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
Need a Banner Made? PM ME!
So it seems early in the usage of Roman Numerals, the subtractive rule was known about and could be used
Perhaps when it was used and space was a concern subtractive rules were employed, but if the space was there then add add add?
like M:CC:XXX:IIII (for 1234)
is that at various stages during the rise and fall of the Roman Empire
the IV, like the letter V substituting for U, was adopted as a labor-saving
measure by stonecutters and engravers. Fewer strokes and thus less time
required. I was never very confident that my high-school Latin teachers
knew what they were talking about, but then I did learn Latin too, for what
it's worth, ho ho.
Best to all ~
Tom
Proud (but humbled) "You Suck" Designee, February 2010.
<<Good heavens, man, what do you do for fun? Juggle chainsaws, lit torches, and sea urchins? My head hurts just thinking about that!>>
Physically, I am a klutz, so no juggling for me, but thanks for the complement.
I find multiplyng Roman numerals to be very simple. I think I could prove it you, but the complete explanation might be too complicated to undertake here. A complete multiplication table has few entries. Just make a square with I, V, X, L, C, D, M entries on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis and just outside the table proper. Then fill in the products. The first line (I times) repeats the heading as I, V, X, L, C, D, M
The next line would read:
V * I = V
V * V = XXV
V * X= L
V * L = CCL
V * C = D
V * D = MMD
V * M = V with a bar over it (This concludes the second line of the table.)
Then multiply one character of one term versus one character of the other term using this table, adding
the results until you are finished. This may be tedious, but it is simple.
I learned to add with an abacus as a separate project, but it is a natural for working with Roman numerals. Each bead represents a Roman numeral. The lower right 4 or 5 beads are I's and the top 1 or 2 are V's. (Abacuses come both ways - 9 or 11 beads total in one double column). The next column to the left are X's and L's. You may note what these systems are based on. VIII equals one hand and three fingers.