home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: ba.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!xstor!NewsWatcher!user
- From: daniels@xstor.com (Daniel A. Segel)
- Subject: Re: Watches w/Roman Numerals...
- Message-ID: <daniels-210193094154@175.175.10.2>
- Followup-To: ba.general
- Sender: news@xstor.com
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pumpkin
- Organization: Storage Dimensions, Inc.
- References: <185057@pyramid.pyramid.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:44:22 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <185057@pyramid.pyramid.com>, rrosen@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com
- (Randy Rosenberg) wrote:
- >
- >
- > Am I the only one who has noticed, but are most watches with Roman
- > Numerals wrong?
- >
- > As I understand the Roman Numerals, they go: I, II, III, IV, V, etc...
- >
- > Note that 4 = IV. Well, I have been unable to find a watch where the
- > "4" (or "IV") is correct. Most watches I have found use "IIII" for "4".
- >
- > So, am I wrong, or are the watch makers?
-
- Neither. And it's not just watches.
-
- There are two standards for how "4" is represented in Roman Numerals. All
- clocks and watches use "IIII" and everything else uses "IV". The world has
- been this way for at least a few hundred years.
-
- Now, if you want to know *why* clocks and watches are different, that's a
- much
- harder question to answer. Most viable theories I've seen have to do with
- aesthetics; I'll try to remember to look it up tonight in one of my watch
- books.
-
- Daniel S.
- ___________________________________________________________________________
- Daniel A. Segel, KD6NMT Macintosh Customer Engineering
- Triumph Bonneville 650, BMW R75/5 Storage Dimensions, Inc. (408) 954-0710
- daniels@xstor.com All opinions are of my own invention.
-
-
-