Just to be especially pedantic,… The ancient Romans wrote IIII for 4, VIIII for 9, LXXXX for 90, and so forth. The method of subtracting a smaller number from a following next-larger number is a medieval invention.
But what I’ve never understood is why most antique clock faces with Roman numerals use IX for 9 but IIII for 4.
Rodney99 about 13 years ago
1097 AD
PICTO about 13 years ago
I think that might be some other language. Italian or Roman.
PICTO about 13 years ago
If @Dogsniff was a stray, would that mean he had a roamin’ nose?
Aussie Down Under about 13 years ago
It’s1093 AD. It would be 1097 if the II was after the V.
flyertom about 13 years ago
1093 would be MXCIII1097 would be MXCVIIIsn’t Tiberius available to proof read anymore?
RonaldDavis about 13 years ago
IIV is a funny way to write 3, but that’s what it is if it is in a Roman numeral. The dot makes the label look more like an Andorran Web address.
rockngolfer about 13 years ago
I’m just waiting for Superbowl Extra Large VI.
LingeeWhiz about 13 years ago
That is an old McDuff AD.
Dr Sheriff MB esq PhD DML about 13 years ago
duh… “Max…. Max Sivid” of early Germanic origin….
pschearer Premium Member about 13 years ago
Just to be especially pedantic,… The ancient Romans wrote IIII for 4, VIIII for 9, LXXXX for 90, and so forth. The method of subtracting a smaller number from a following next-larger number is a medieval invention.
But what I’ve never understood is why most antique clock faces with Roman numerals use IX for 9 but IIII for 4.
PICTO about 13 years ago
Your avatar tells me that you spelled the last word in your post wrong. I believe the correct spelling should be Canadien.