Its 2019, are Roman Numerals used anywhere other than the Super Bowl?

[Acsenray]

@Lucas_Jackson

Interestingly I considered starting a thread a week or so ago about this. I ran across a clock face with Roman numerals that had a weird ten: The Fall of Roman Numerals — Steve Lovelace

Big Ben has this too. I couldn’t find any other examples other than clock faces. Is it a particular “font” or is it a clockmaker invention?

It’s a letter form that comes from traditional black letter (Textura) scripts developed to allow scribes to quickly copy texts and save space.

[rsat3acr]

pages in book prefaces are in Roman numerals

[DesertDog]

@Lucas_Jackson

Interestingly I considered starting a thread a week or so ago about this. I ran across a clock face with Roman numerals that had a weird ten: The Fall of Roman Numerals — Steve Lovelace

Big Ben has this too. I couldn’t find any other examples other than clock faces. Is it a particular “font” or is it a clockmaker invention?

@The blog entry

I mean round analog clocks, not the digital displays you see on microwaves, computers and mobile phones. Those kinds of displays don’t use Roman Numerals at all.

Now I got an itch to build me a roman numeral digital clock.

VIII:XX:LVI… LVII… LVIII… LIX…

VIII:XXI:- -

[Acsenray]

@Acsenray

It’s a letter form that comes from traditional black letter (Textura) scripts developed to allow scribes to quickly copy texts and save space.

Compare this for example — Learn Calligraphy | Blackletter Alphabet - or - Gothic

[Lucas_Jackson]

@Acsenray

Compare this for example — Learn Calligraphy | Blackletter Alphabet - or - Gothic

Thanks for the follow up. Those look a bit more X-y to my eye. Maybe it’s seeing it in alphabet context or maybe the clock face version is vertically enlongated.

Still very interesting. Thanks again.

[markn_1]

@DesertDog

Now I got an itch to build me a roman numeral digital clock.

VIII:XX:LVI… LVII… LVIII… LIX…

VIII:XXI:- -

You can buy one: Technabob - Technabob

Or if you really want to build it yourself, here are some instructions: https://www.instructables.com/id/roman-numeral-clock/

[ftg]

@DesertDog

Now I got an itch to build me a roman numeral digital clock.

VIII:XX:LVI… LVII… LVIII… LIX…

VIII:XXI:- -

There was a kit for Nixie tubes that handles various alphabets, including Roman numerals. But with 4 symbols and buy your own tubes (plus the kit may not be available anymore).

But if you going old-school with the symbols, what’s better than nixie tubes?

[dstarfire]

@Mangosteen

I know I used to see them at the very end of Hollywood movie credits. Why did they use them there?

To copyright something, you have to include the date with your copyright notice. Early theater owners wanted to hide the date so they could replay films that had come out a few years before. By writing the year in roman numerals, you satisfy the legal requirement without making the year easily readable by the audience (especially as it’s scrolling up the screen).

[Mangosteen]

Are Roman Numerals still taught in schools?

What grade level, in Math or History class?

[DPRK]

@ftg

But if you going old-school with the symbols, what’s better than nixie tubes?

Clepsydra.

[ftg]

@DPRK

Clepsydra.

But how do you do a digital one and avoid shocks at the same time?

Anyhoo …

I was thinking about digital roman number clocks and the issues are not good.

The numbers 1-12 can be handled by a 4 character display. But to handle minutes and seconds it’s getting pretty bad. 18 is XVIII, 5 symbols right there unless you allow IIXX forms. 38 and 48 are killers in the regular form. XXXVIII and XXXXVIII. 6 and 7 resp. But you could also go with IIL for 48 to top off at 6. So 4+6+6=16 for hours, minutes, seconds. That’s a lot.

Then I remembered zero! Uh-oh. Well, that’s a problem.

Dear Ancient Folk: If you want a real civilization invent a symbol for zero. De nada.

[sbunny8]

IIRC, doctors use roman numerals when writing prescriptions, just one more way to make it harder for the lay person to alter and/or forge a prescription.

[DesertDog]

@DPRK

Clepsydra.

I was gonna say flip cards but you got me beat.

Thanks for the link, markn+. I’d been poking around Arduino gear sites and they have a FeatherWing you can plug four 14-segment displays into for a reasonable price, but like tmig, calculated the number of digits XXXVIII would take, leaving a lot of dark most of the time. I quit for a bit before thinking of a matrix.

[dtilque]

@ftg

The numbers 1-12 can be handled by a 4 character display. But to handle minutes and seconds it’s getting pretty bad. 18 is XVIII, 5 symbols right there unless you allow IIXX forms. 38 and 48 are killers in the regular form. XXXVIII and XXXXVIII. 6 and 7 resp. But you could also go with IIL for 48 to top off at 6.

Regular form for 48 is XLVIII, so you don’t have to worry about 7 letter numerals.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mangosteen

Are Roman Numerals still taught in schools?

What grade level, in Math or History class?

I learned them when I was about 10 (UK private schools). I’m pretty sure they were taught as part of Roman history rather than mathematics, as we didn’t learn how to do arithmetic in Roman notation or anything. We just had to learn what the letters corresponded to, and the conventions for what the position of each letter meant. We also touched on them in Latin, of course.

[Acsenray]

I have a notion that we learned about Roman numerals in English or literature class, probably no later than 7th or 8th grade. But I can’t say I know for sure. I had taught myself about Roman numerals by the time I was 8 or so when I started noticing them on old clocks and sundials while on family vacation and sightseeing.

[ftg]

@dtilque

Regular form for 48 is XLVIII, so you don’t have to worry about 7 letter numerals.

That’s another thing about Roman numerals. The whole prefix subtraction thing can get too much and makes it easier to make mistakes.

[dtilque]

@ftg

That’s another thing about Roman numerals. The whole prefix subtraction thing can get too much and makes it easier to make mistakes.

It’s not wrong to not use the prefix substraction. In fact, for much of the Roman Empire, it was not used. I don’t know exactly when someone came up with it, but sometime in the Middle Ages. Also, once it was invented, there was lots of variation in its use, much of which would be considered wrong after it got more-or-less standardized. For example IC was sometimes used for 99.

[DPRK]

@dtilque

It’s not wrong to not use the prefix substraction. In fact, for much of the Roman Empire, it was not used. I don’t know exactly when someone came up with it, but sometime in the Middle Ages. Also, once it was invented, there was lots of variation in its use, much of which would be considered wrong after it got more-or-less standardized. For example IC was sometimes used for 99.

In History of Mathematics, David Eugene Smith, we have

It is because of the fact that the difficulty is not evident with so simple a number as 4 that the Romans did not commonly use the subtractive principle in this case, preferring the form IIII to the form IV. They used the principle more frequently in the case of 9, but even here they wrote VIIII oftener than IX. In the case of 400 they usually wrote CCCC, but occasionally they used CD. Even as late as the 16th century we often find a number like 1549 written in some such form as Mcccccxxxxviiij.

Relics of the subtractive principle are seen in our tendency to say “ten minutes of (or “to”) six” instead of “fifty minutes past five,” and to say “a quarter of (or “to”) six” rather than “three quarters of an hour past five.”

There is a possibility that the Romans avoided IV, the initials of IVPITER, just as the Hebrews avoided יה in writing 15, as the Babylonians avoided their natural form for 19, and as similar instances of reverence for or fear of deity occur in other languages.

Even when the subtractive principle was used, no fixed standard was recognized. The number 19 was commonly written XIX, but not infrequently IXX. We also find IIX for 8 and IIXX for 18, but these were not so common. It is quite rare to find CD for 400 or CM for 900, and forms like MCM and DCD were never used in ancient or medieval times. In general, therefore, it may be said that the Romans recognized the subtractive principle but did not make much use of it.

Occasionally this principle was used with the fraction ½, for which the Romans wrote the letter S, initial of semis (half). Thus we find SXC for 89½ and SXXC for 79½.

ETA

The Roman forms persisted in use, especially outside of Italy, until printed arithmetics made our common numerals widely known. Even at the present time the fishermen of Chioggia, near Venice, use forms that closely resemble those of the early Etruscans, so persistent is custom in the humbler occupations of man.

[dtilque]

Thanks DPRK. I was unaware that the prefix subtraction went back that far. No doubt if we had dates for all the classic Roman texts, we could pinpoint when it was invented. I think it’s obvious that Roman numerals originally didn’t have it.

I may have been mixing the prefix thing with the use of M = 1000. That I know was a late invention. There was a set of symbols for higher numbers, those from 500 on up, that are not taught in schools today, probably because they weren’t in universal usage. But I understand the use of D = 500 comes from this system