Re: Roman numerals (tombstones)

From: Mensanator (mensanator_at_aol.compost)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: 31 Jul 2004 14:20:01 GMT

>Subject: Re: Roman numerals (tombstones)
>From: William Elliot marsh@privacy.net
>Date: 7/31/04 4:40 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040731022610.P65663@agora.rdrop.com>
>
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> William Elliot <marsh@privacy.net> writes:
>> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Randy Poe wrote:
>> >
>> > > I saw what appears to be date that begins with what looks like
>> > > "CI)I)" where ")" indicates a mirror-image "C". I'm guessing that
>> > > "I)" is a way of writing "D" or 500. Can someone verify that?
>> > >
>> > No, however your conclusion seems appropiate.
>> >
>> > > In that case, what would "CI)I)" indicate, for instance with
>> > > "CI)I)XIII"? Should I read this as 100 + 500 + 500 + 13 = 1113?
>> > >
>> > After the translation you have CDDXIII. No, IX = -1 + 10 = 9
>> > You have 913. DDCXIII is 1113. The usage DD for M is unusual.
>>
>> I think you've both not recognised the CI) pattern.
>> CI) = 1000 (and CCI)) = 10000, CCCI))) = 100000)
>> Thus I think the date would be 1000 + 500 + 13 = 1513
>>
>A date perhaps more befitting of the context.
>
>My dictionary, surprise, gives just as described, I) for D.
>Then it gives CI) for M, which makes no sense.

My dictionary doesn't list that, but it does list IL=49 and
IC=99 which I've never seen used. Is it true that the ancient
Romans never used that convention of subtracting a smaller
letter from a larger one, that being a medieval usage?

>
>It did not give M with line above for one million as
>learned in school. This I) stuff is a total surprise.

Possibly there were differing conventions used?

>
>What's the grammatically sense of ) that it gives
> I) 500 this doesn't make sense
> CI) 1000 in view of the this
> CCI)) 10,000 etc. continuing sequence
>
>What if DI), LI), XI), VI) or II)?
>
>Do you think the Romans ever had any uses for one million? 

-- 
Mensanator
Ace of Clubs
Quantcast