I met Wirth only once, and of course he told the story that Europeans
called him by name and Americans called him by value.

---------- This quip was familiar to me, 30+ years ago.
(lambda() (Thunks (for reminding me!)))

"The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. You probably think
so, too. However, there are many cases where IIII is used at the 4:00
position on the dial plates of clocks that use Roman numerals."

Brought to you by the Seiko museum.
https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/

>> The question is about "numeral", not "number".
>>
>> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>> "1/4maine", or when Prince wrote "I Would Die 4 U" and "Nothing Compares
>> 2 U", they playfully used numerals to spell words. There are no
numbers in
>> sight, but those are still numerals.
>>

>> Latin (and ancient Greek and Hebrew) used letters as numerals. They're
>> numerals when they represent numbers, and that's true even if the number
>> represents something else, such as a word that sounds like the number.

>> According to Wikipedia, the origin of the "XIIII" in "Vilain XIIII"
isn't
>> known, though in the two theories it mentions, it's a number (the
>> fourteenth quarter of somebody's escutcheon, or fourteen acres given
to an
>> illegitimate son), not some word that sounds like [katorz]. But "XIIII"
>> is a numeral there because it refers to "quatorze", whether or not
>> "quatorze" refers in turn to something other than 14.

> It is called by name, not by value,

HenHanna wrote:
>
> I met Wirth only once, and of course he told the story that Europeans
> called him by name and Americans called him by value.
>
>             ---------- This quip was familiar to me,  30+ years ago.
>                                (lambda() (Thunks (for reminding me!)))
>
>
> "The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. You probably think
> so, too.    However, there are many cases where IIII is used at the 4:00
> position on the dial plates of clocks that use Roman numerals."
>
>                   Brought to you by the Seiko museum.
>                      https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/
>
>
> >> The question is about "numeral", not "number".
> >>
> >> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
> >> "1/4maine", or when Prince wrote "I Would Die 4 U" and "Nothing
> Compares
> >> 2 U", they playfully used numerals to spell words.  There are no
> numbers in
> >> sight, but those are still numerals.
> >>
>
>
> >> Latin (and ancient Greek and Hebrew) used letters as numerals.  They're
> >> numerals when they represent numbers, and that's true even if the
> number
> >> represents something else, such as a word that sounds like the number.
>
>
> >> According to Wikipedia, the origin of the "XIIII" in "Vilain XIIII"
> isn't
> >> known, though in the two theories it mentions, it's a number (the
> >> fourteenth quarter of somebody's escutcheon, or fourteen acres given
> to an
> >> illegitimate son), not some word that sounds like [katorz].  But
> "XIIII"
> >> is a numeral there because it refers to "quatorze", whether or not
> >> "quatorze" refers in turn to something other than 14.
>
>
> > It is called by name, not by value,
>
The Romans wrote their supreme deity's name as "IVPPITER". Perhaps "IV"
on a sundial seemed rather blasphemous.
Ed

On 20/03/2024 10:43, Ed Cryer wrote:
> HenHanna wrote:
>>
>> I met Wirth only once, and of course he told the story that Europeans
>> called him by name and Americans called him by value.
>>
>>              ---------- This quip was familiar to me,  30+ years ago.
>>                                 (lambda() (Thunks (for reminding me!)))
>>
>>
>> "The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. You probably think
>> so, too.    However, there are many cases where IIII is used at the 4:00
>> position on the dial plates of clocks that use Roman numerals."
>>
>>                    Brought to you by the Seiko museum.
>>                       https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/
>>
>>
>>  >> The question is about "numeral", not "number".
>>  >>
>>  >> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>>  >> "1/4maine", or when Prince wrote "I Would Die 4 U" and "Nothing
>> Compares
>>  >> 2 U", they playfully used numerals to spell words.  There are no
>> numbers in
>>  >> sight, but those are still numerals.
>>  >>
>>
>>
>>  >> Latin (and ancient Greek and Hebrew) used letters as numerals.
>> They're
>>  >> numerals when they represent numbers, and that's true even if the
>> number
>>  >> represents something else, such as a word that sounds like the
>> number.
>>
>>
>>  >> According to Wikipedia, the origin of the "XIIII" in "Vilain
>> XIIII" isn't
>>  >> known, though in the two theories it mentions, it's a number (the
>>  >> fourteenth quarter of somebody's escutcheon, or fourteen acres
>> given to an
>>  >> illegitimate son), not some word that sounds like [katorz].  But
>> "XIIII"
>>  >> is a numeral there because it refers to "quatorze", whether or not
>>  >> "quatorze" refers in turn to something other than 14.
>>
>>
>>  > It is called by name, not by value,
>>
>
> The Romans wrote their supreme deity's name as "IVPPITER". Perhaps "IV"
> on a sundial seemed rather blasphemous.
>
> Ed
>

Ancient texts give "iiij" with the "j" meaning ending symbol but
functioning as "i". The notation "IV" is more modern.

--
Richard van Schaik
f.m.a.vanschaikREMOVE@THISgmail.com
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/
The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.

Richard van Schaik wrote:

> On 20/03/2024 10:43, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> HenHanna wrote:
>>>
>>> I met Wirth only once, and of course he told the story that Europeans
>>> called him by name and Americans called him by value.
>>>
>>>              ---------- This quip was familiar to me,  30+ years ago.
>>>                                 (lambda() (Thunks (for reminding me!)))
>>>
>>>
>>> "The numerical notation of 4 is IV in Roman numerals. You probably think
>>> so, too.    However, there are many cases where IIII is used at the 4:00
>>> position on the dial plates of clocks that use Roman numerals."
>>>
>>>                    Brought to you by the Seiko museum.
>>>                       https://museum.seiko.co.jp/en/knowledge/trivia02/
>>>
>>>
>>>  >> The question is about "numeral", not "number".
>>>  >>
>>>  >> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>>>  >> "1/4maine", or when Prince wrote "I Would Die 4 U" and "Nothing
>>> Compares
>>>  >> 2 U", they playfully used numerals to spell words.  There are no
>>> numbers in
>>>  >> sight, but those are still numerals.
>>>  >>
>>>
>>>
>>>  >> Latin (and ancient Greek and Hebrew) used letters as numerals.
>>> They're
>>>  >> numerals when they represent numbers, and that's true even if the
>>> number
>>>  >> represents something else, such as a word that sounds like the
>>> number.
>>>
>>>
>>>  >> According to Wikipedia, the origin of the "XIIII" in "Vilain
>>> XIIII" isn't
>>>  >> known, though in the two theories it mentions, it's a number (the
>>>  >> fourteenth quarter of somebody's escutcheon, or fourteen acres
>>> given to an
>>>  >> illegitimate son), not some word that sounds like [katorz].  But
>>> "XIIII"
>>>  >> is a numeral there because it refers to "quatorze", whether or not
>>>  >> "quatorze" refers in turn to something other than 14.
>>>
>>>
>>>  > It is called by name, not by value,
>>>
>>
>> The Romans wrote their supreme deity's name as "IVPPITER". Perhaps "IV"
>> on a sundial seemed rather blasphemous.
>>
>> Ed
>>

> Ancient texts give "iiij" with the "j" meaning ending symbol but
> functioning as "i". The notation "IV" is more modern.


-------- both great points!!!


It was common not to associate time with Jupiter as his father Saturn was the God of Time and a cannibal tyrant. It was perpetrated so frequently in Roman times that it was traditional not to use IV when referring to time even centuries after belief of Jupiter faded into obscurity.

________________________________

Since the Middle Ages, a "j" has sometimes been substituted for the final "i" of a "lower-case" Roman numeral, such as "iij" for 3 or "vij" for 7.

This "j" can be considered a swash variant of "i". Into the early 20th century, the use of a final "j" was still sometimes used in medical prescriptions to prevent tampering with or misinterpretation of a number after it was written.[63]

On 20/03/2024 11:04, Richard van Schaik wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 10:43, Ed Cryer wrote:

>>
>> The Romans wrote their supreme deity's name as "IVPPITER". Perhaps
>> "IV" on a sundial seemed rather blasphemous.
>>

Historians always have to extrapolate, interpolate, or simply guess
about these things. So it is important not to be too fixed on any theories.

As I understand it, it is simply a matter of the Romans often using
"iiii" for 4, and "viiii" for 9, and so on, when working with numbers in
general. This makes arithmetic far easier, and the numbers are clearer.
(Sometimes people re-arranged the order, such as "IIXX" meaning the
same as "XXII".) Various abbreviations were used in different
circumstances - if you were chiselling numbers in stone, it is nice to
have shorter versions!

It is also important to remember that Roman society lasted a /long/
time, from its early beginnings until the end of the Eastern Roman
Empire. And it covered a large area with lots of people, languages, and
writing systems. So it would be a mistake to assume that "the Romans"
always wrote their numbers in the same way.

Regarding clock dials, as clocks with dials became common, "VIIII" was
abbreviated to "IX" to fit better on the dial. Then "IIII" was later
shorten to "IV", more as a mistaken idea about consistency (since it
does not save much space).

>
> Ancient texts give "iiij" with the "j" meaning ending symbol but
> functioning as "i". The notation "IV" is more modern.
>

The Romans didn't have a letter "j" at all - they used "i". The
development of "j" as a distinct letter, rather than just a way of
writing "i", came much later than the Romans (though Roman numerals were
still in heavy usage).

Hello All,

I am reading Giuseppe Goffredo Ariodante Fabretti's Supplemento Primo,
and have just tripped over (and broken both legs on) his (remarkable?)
"xxxjx", in a footnote on page 13.

Fabretti was a literate Italian. Literate Italians corrupted Latin to
this dismal extent. I doubt that the "j" is a printer's apprentice's
mistake.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:58:30 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 20/03/2024 11:04, Richard van Schaik wrote:
>> On 20/03/2024 10:43, Ed Cryer wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The Romans wrote their supreme deity's name as "IVPPITER". Perhaps
>>> "IV" on a sundial seemed rather blasphemous.
>>>
>
>Historians always have to extrapolate, interpolate, or simply guess
>about these things. So it is important not to be too fixed on any theories.
>
>As I understand it, it is simply a matter of the Romans often using
>"iiii" for 4, and "viiii" for 9, and so on, when working with numbers in
>general. This makes arithmetic far easier, and the numbers are clearer.
> (Sometimes people re-arranged the order, such as "IIXX" meaning the
>same as "XXII".) Various abbreviations were used in different
>circumstances - if you were chiselling numbers in stone, it is nice to
>have shorter versions!
>
>It is also important to remember that Roman society lasted a /long/
>time, from its early beginnings until the end of the Eastern Roman
>Empire. And it covered a large area with lots of people, languages, and
>writing systems. So it would be a mistake to assume that "the Romans"
>always wrote their numbers in the same way.
>
>Regarding clock dials, as clocks with dials became common, "VIIII" was
>abbreviated to "IX" to fit better on the dial. Then "IIII" was later
>shorten to "IV", more as a mistaken idea about consistency (since it
>does not save much space).
>
>>
>> Ancient texts give "iiij" with the "j" meaning ending symbol but
>> functioning as "i". The notation "IV" is more modern.
>>
>
>The Romans didn't have a letter "j" at all - they used "i". The
>development of "j" as a distinct letter, rather than just a way of
>writing "i", came much later than the Romans (though Roman numerals were
>still in heavy usage).

>>> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>>> "1/4maine" ...

That one was easy to decipher. Another one was “@kins”, also “T8”. But I
got stymied by “$$on”.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>>> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>>>> "1/4maine" ...

> That one was easy to decipher. Another one was “@kins”, also “T8”. But I
> got stymied by “$$on”.

Another easy one was "Wyg&".

According to

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/213/versions-of-the-demolished-man

some printings after the original serialization in /Galaxy/ regularized some or all
of those names. My Science Fiction Book Club edition has "Tate", not "T8".
I don't know what "$$on" might be. There's a not very common surname
"Buckson", and a rare one "Buxon". if you're interested, you could tell me
where "$$on" occurs and I could see what's there in my edition.

--
Jerry Friedman

jerryfriedman wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>>>> When Alfred Bester, in /The Demolished Man/,spelled "Quartermaine" as
>>>>> "1/4maine" ...

>> That one was easy to decipher. Another one was “@kins”, also “T8”. But I
>> got stymied by “$$on”.

> Another easy one was "Wyg&".

> According to

> https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/213/versions-of-the-demolished-man

> some printings after the original serialization in /Galaxy/ regularized some or all
> of those names. My Science Fiction Book Club edition has "Tate", not "T8".
> I don't know what "$$on" might be. There's a not very common surname
> "Buckson", and a rare one "Buxon". if you're interested, you could tell me
> where "$$on" occurs and I could see what's there in my edition.

Never mind, it was supposed to be "Jackson". Pretty obscure.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/19623839-dec-2018---the-demolished-man-by-alfred-bester

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:19:08 +0000, jerryfriedman wrote:

> Never mind, it was supposed to be "Jackson". Pretty obscure.

I thought “$$on” was “Jefferson”, as in the President on the two-dollar
bill.

Two “$”, get it?