# British Style Roman Numerals? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 9, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986 "2004-08-09T04:40:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/1 "2004-08-09T04:40:42Z")
I’ve been watching a DVD of the BBC series _As Time Goes By_ and enjoying it thoroughly…until the end credits. The series was taped in “MCMXV.” Or at least that’s what I _think_ it says. But that’s 1915. Dame Judi is a little closer to my age I think. What gives? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/2 "2004-08-09T05:32:17Z")
[IMDB](http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0105943/) tells us it was filmed between 1992 and 2002. So assuming it did end in a V you must have seen one made in 1995, which is MCMXCV. You missed a character. There is not, so far as I know, any difference between “British style roman numerals” and whatever style you are used to. The only two different styles I’m aware of are original roman, which was purely additive (I II III IIII V VI VII VIII VIIII X) and Victorian subtractive (I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X). ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/3 "2004-08-09T05:33:10Z")
That seems too short. maybe it was MCMXCV which I seem to recognise better. I have no idea what number that is though. ---
**Author:** ![Lobsang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobsang/32/4067_2.png) [@Lobsang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobsang)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/4 "2004-08-09T05:34:29Z")
> [@AndrewT](#): > > which is MCMXCV. I was right! (simulpost, I did not see your post before posting mine) Well remembered Lobsang! and I don’t even know how to read roman numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/5 "2004-08-09T07:40:09Z")
> [@AndrewT](#): > > There is not, so far as I know, any difference between “British style roman numerals” and whatever style you are used to. The only two different styles I’m aware of are original roman, which was purely additive (I II III IIII V VI VII VIII VIIII X) and Victorian subtractive (I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X). Really? Did the Romans not use the subtractive method at all? I thought that difference only applied to IIII versus IV four. Well, you learn something new every day here 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/6 "2004-08-09T08:24:19Z")
I’ve double checked the two discs we have here. I don’t have the boxes – only the envelopes from Nexflex. Season 5 was taped in MCMXV (their mistake) Season 6 was taped in MCMXCVII They appear to have skipped a season if they intended for the first to be 1995. I have noticed the **IIII** used on clock faces before and wondered about the origin of the tradition. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/7 "2004-08-09T11:03:30Z")
The BBC does take a certain flexibility over the numerals used. They decided that 1999 would just look silly as MIM, so they used MCMXCVIIII instead. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/8 "2004-08-09T12:23:50Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > The BBC does take a certain flexibility over the numerals used. They decided that 1999 would just look silly as MIM, so they used MCMXCVIIII instead. Shouldn’t that be MCMXCIX? MIM is wrong in all styles of Roman numerals, because you only subtract from the digit which is 5 or 10 times larger, i.e.: 1 from 5 or 10 – IV or IX 10 from 50 or 100 – XL or XC 100 from 500 or 1000 – CD or CM ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/9 "2004-08-09T12:51:27Z")
How to convert ordinary numbers to Roman style and vice versa is tabulated at: \<[http://www.yourdictionary.com/crossword/romanums.html](http://www.yourdictionary.com/crossword/romanums.html)\> Now you know! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/898d66/32.png) [@Mycroft\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_H)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/10 "2004-08-09T20:07:57Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Season 5 was taped in MCMXV (their mistake) That would be the _ **old** _ version of _As Time Goes By_ which was broadcast for 1915-era proto-tellys. 😉 (It’s a good thing it didn’t say MCMXX or we would have to endure the “Death Rays” comments.) ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/11 "2004-08-09T20:39:06Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Really? Did the Romans not use the subtractive method at all? I thought that difference only applied to IIII versus IV four. Well, you learn something new every day here 🙂 The Romans DID sometimes use it, they just did not do so consistently, and sometimes used other subtractive conventions as well - I suppose some ancient Romans might indeed have written 1999 as “MIM” if they had thought about it. Here’s an article, which includes several historical examples: [http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm](http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htm) > [@](#): > > The strict rules about Roman numerals have been used only relatively recently. In earlier periods, although the subtractive principle was used, it seems that it was an alternative rather than compulsory and other forms such as VIIII for 9 and even IIXX for 18 are found. At any date exceptions can be found, as these four examples from different periods and all in Rome itself, show. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/12 "2004-08-09T22:53:39Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I have noticed the **IIII** used on clock faces before and wondered about the origin of the tradition. [So have others.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153.html) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/13 "2004-08-09T23:19:13Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Shouldn’t that be MCMXCIX? > > MIM is wrong in all styles of Roman numerals, because you only subtract from the digit which is 5 or 10 times larger, i.e.: > 1 from 5 or 10 – IV or IX > 10 from 50 or 100 – XL or XC > 100 from 500 or 1000 – CD or CM GODDAMMIT!!!..yeah, that’s right…_sulks in a very geeky corner_ ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/14 "2004-08-10T10:06:06Z")
You’re not the first to spot the BBC’s goof… [see here](http://www.abc.net.au/feedback/episodes/s957449.htm) (halfway down page) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/15 "2004-08-10T15:48:11Z")
For the record, IIII as opposed to IV dates from uncial lettering and has a religious significance. As most people know, the Chief Honcho of the Roman Gods was Jupiter – but notice that we write that with an initial “Ju-” which were not classic Roman letters, and that the rest of the word is “-piter,” a variant on “pater” meaning “Father.” The actual name in uncials was written with an I for the modern J and a V for the modern U – producing IVPITER, of which the first part was the “name” and the second the father appellation. Pious Roman pagans avoided writing IV as a separate entity for 4, since it was the name of the Father God – and Christians when they became prevalent avoided it because it was acknowledging a pagan god. Therefore the custom of using IIII on clocks, etc., in lieu of the IV of classic subtractive Roman numerals arose out of religious scruples. Note, though, that this did not apply to XIV, XXIV, LXIV, etc., where the letters constituting the divine name were simply a part of the number. Only as a standalone IV was it deemed to represent Jupiter’s name and therefore avoided. (To work up a parallel, a devout Og-ite if there were such a person would not find “We slogged through the bog with our tracking dog in search of the lost clog” (presumably **Coldfire** ’s ;)) as referencing their deity; the words merely contain the divine name as letters.) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/16 "2004-08-11T00:30:46Z")
**Colophon** , thanks for the _Feedback_ feedback. I thought for a minute there that maybe this topic had been discussed before at SDMB. And **Earl** , I appreciate the link. **Polycarp** , it’s amazing how we complicate our lives in efforts to protect the sacred. Thanks, everybody. Anyone want to show me how to find the square root in the Roman system? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/17 "2004-08-11T03:37:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > The actual name in uncials was written with an I for the modern J and a V for the modern U – producing IVPITER This was already referenced in the SD column in the link in post #12 . ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/18 "2004-08-11T05:10:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Anyone want to show me how to find the square root in the Roman system? No, nobody wants to. Including you ;). ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/19 "2004-08-11T13:33:53Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Anyone want to show me how to find the square root in the Roman system? It’s hard enough to do multiplication, and very hard to do division. That’s why the Romans used abacuses for any serious calculation, and only used Roman numerals to write down the answers. ---
**Author:** ![postcards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e8cbc/32.png) [@postcards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postcards)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986/20 "2004-08-11T15:09:47Z")
In the column that was linked earlier, I find it disturbing the the two addenda to the original question are headlined “A SITE FOR FOUR I’S, PART ONE” and “A SITE FOR FOUR I’S, PART TWO”. Shouldn’t the first word be _ **Cite** _? As in ‘Citation’? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-style-roman-numerals/258986.md?page=2)