Are (were) the rules for writing Roman Numerals set in stone (heh)? If I write XIII instead of XIV, would a Latin teacher dock me some points? If Morologus the Scribe wrote XXVIIII on a receipt for 29 bushels of grain instead of XXIX, would his master have had him flogged?
Re. XIII vs XIV, well, one is 13 and the other one is 14… but I’ve seen 14 written both as XIIII and as XIV.
Usually the briefer forms would be preferred, but take into account that asking about “rules for Roman Numerals” is asking about rules for something that was in daily use for many centuries in a very large area.
Sorry Nava. I meant to write XIIII and XIV-- both 14. My eyesight isn’t what it used to be (and it wasn’t much to begin with).
use a sharp chisel, erasing sloppy numerals or mistakes takes a lot of time. practice your hammer aim or use a modern chisel with a hand guard.
While I can’t answer the ‘set in stone’ part, this is a good example of why the rules are what they are. It’s easy to distinguish I, II, and III at a glance, but by IIII, I feel like I need to start actually counting I’s.
I remember my latin teacher in HS telling me that sometimes XIIII would be used because it’s easier to carve than XIV and that the rules are flexible regarding the IX/IV, VIIII/IIII rules. So no, not flogged but it’d be like someone writing “Lite” and “Nite” instead of “Light” or “Night”.
From the trivia desk:
Most clocks with Roman numerals show IIII for 4-o’clock. An exception is Big Ben in London, which uses IV.
(Which is referenced in: Roman numerals - Wikipedia )
For the record, here’s Cecil’s take on that classic conundrum…
What is the preferred way to write 505?
In modern Roman numerals? It would be DV, though CCCCCV would be a common alternate form.
Yeah, but like Red said, it’s a perfect example of why the IV version would be preferred 
It’s a very easy mistake to make.
What I have always wondered is how did they say these numbers, “From the Coliseum its Lions Ex Ex Ex Vee Eye Eye Eye, Christians Vee Eye Eye?”
The National Football League in the United States uses Roman numerals instead of Arabic numbers or years to denote its Super Bowl championship game. Super Bowl L (50) is scheduled to take place in 2016, and there have been calls to change the name to “Super Bowl 50” because of the negative connotations of the letter “L”, frequently held up on one’s forehead in the U.S. as if to say, “Loooooser!”
There used to be, and maybe still is, a convention for TV series to write their year of production at the end of the credits in Roman Numerals. In 1990 they used MXM = 1000 + (1000 - 10) = 1990, but the actual standard convention was supposed to be MCMXC = 1000 + (1000 - 100) + (100 - 10) = 1990
British TV shows still use Roman numerals, and through the 1990s they used MCMXC, MCMXCI, MCMXCII and so on up to MCMXCIX for 1999. Never MXM for 1990, or MIM for 1999.
Actually I did notice the other day when watching a repeat of Father Ted that they messed up and gave the date as MXMXCVI, rather than MCMXCVI. So instead of 1996 it was apparently made in, um, (1000) + (1000-10) + (100-10) + (5+1), or 2086.
Someone else obviously noticed, too.
Lions triginta octo, Christians septum
Fair enough. I remember noticing it, but it was in New Zealand, so may have been for NZ shows only, and was very soon after January 1st so perhaps they quickly corrected the error.
Thanks.
Septem