This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don

In article , D. J.
wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

"D. J." wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

It's a colloqiolism -- strictly speaking, IV is "correct", but I have
also noted the IIII. Whether there was a particular individual or
village responsible, I don't know...someone more versed in Shaker
tradition may. BTW, I've seen the same thing w/ some old Mennonite work
here in the Midwest.

"D. J." writes:

Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals
http://www.ubr.com/clocks/faq/iiii.html
http://members.aol.com/lolathrop/roman/iv.html
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153

Either is correct, but formal usage I think favors IV for 4

John

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:53:11 -0500, "D. J."
wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:53:11 -0500, "D. J."
wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don


Although some subset of the Shakers produced attractive instances of
simplified forms, which have become hallmarks of the style commonly
associated with their sect, they did not show a particularly keen
sense of history, as is evidenced in your clock face question, nor did
they have a gift for the extension of history into the future, as is
evidenced by their distaste for procreation.

Quite frankly, they put me in mind of the current day inhabitants of
the red areas of the map, excepting the creativity.



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

In article ,
D. J. wrote:
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don

Authoritative answer: "It depends".

*early* Roman numerals were evaluated _without_ regard to the order of
the 'digits'.
IIVLXXXCD
was one of many valid representations for 687, for example.

An 'standardized' form of numbering introduced the 'semi-positional'
sequencing where things were arranged strictly biggest-to-smallest,
left-to-right. e.g. DCLXXXVII for 687

*ONLY* with 'late' Roman numbering did the "short-hand" notation of
'prefixing' a unit with a smaller unit to indicate 'subtraciton' occur.

Both "IIII" and "IV" are 'correct' representations for the value "four".

Just as "a quarter to twelve", and "eleven forty-five" are both correct
representations for the time described as "the big hand is pointing to
the left, and the little hand is nearly straight up".

After the 'subtractive' forms were introduced, they were *very* commonly
used, primarily because they were shorter, and less strokes, to write.


Note: I opened my yap once too often in a math class, with regard to
why *only* 'power of ten' figures -- and only the one that was one less
than the right-hand 'digit' -- were used in the 'subtractive' forms,
e.g. why not "XM" for 990, or "VC" for 95; and got stuck with a serious
research project on the matter. At this remove, I don't remember the
date ranges associated with the various changes, but I _do_ remember
the history.

D. J. wrote:
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII. Thinking
it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a couple of
photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are also IIII
for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the Romans
changed it in the past 200 years.

Don
G'day all,
This seems to be a standard with clocks, even modern ones tend to have
the number 4 represented as IIII.
I don't know why clocks are different from the norm.
Many years ago, more than I care to remember, when I was in Primary
school I queried the teacher on the same thing and was told not to be a
smart arse, that IV was the way we would do it and if clock makers
wanted to be wrong and use IIII then so be it.
Regards to all
John

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:53:11 -0500, "D. J." wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.

This is a much older change than the Shakers - it's usually dated to a
clock that Henry VIII had installed at Hampton Court.

"D. J." wrote in message
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.

From a visual standpoint, which looks better to you? Aside from the VIII,
there isn't any other character that takes up four spaces. Of course, one
could argue that the 4 balances the 8, but it's up to you to decide which is
more aesthetically pleasing. I believe most learned Roman numerals with the
IV. Do they still teach them in school these days?

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 10:23:56 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:53:11 -0500, "D. J." wrote:

This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.

This is a much older change than the Shakers - it's usually dated to a
clock that Henry VIII had installed at Hampton Court.

Did Henry install it or was it already there by Cardinal Woolsey?

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

"D. J." wrote in message
...
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII. Thinking
it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a couple of
photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are also IIII for
(4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the Romans changed it
in the past 200 years.


Hey you can ever use a "four" that has a triangle at the tip or one that
strictly has all right angles. Which way is correct? ;~)

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"D. J." wrote in message
...
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII. Thinking
it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a couple of
photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are also IIII
for
(4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the Romans changed
it
in the past 200 years.


Hey you can ever use a "four" that has a triangle at the tip or one that
strictly has all right angles. Which way is correct? ;~)

There are many "optional" ways to write things, such as:
- Three with a flat top or round top.
- Four with pointed top or with an open top.
- Seven with a small cross bar or without it.
- Nine with a loop on a stick or with one large curve.
- Lower case a wit a loop on a straight stick or a loop on a curved stick.

...... and many more. When you think about it, old businesses such as lumber
and printing count thousands as the roman numeral M. e.g. 10M means 10,000.
New businesses such as the electronics world uses the metric term K to stand
for thousand. e.g. 10K means 10,000. The world is full of multiple things
that mean the same, and many same things that have different meanings.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:50:50 -0400, "EXT" etonks@sunstormADD-DOT-COM
wrote:

The world is full of multiple things
that mean the same, and many same things that have different meanings.

And if you want to get really technical the world is full of lots of
things that mean nothing.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:19:54 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

Although some subset of the Shakers produced attractive instances of
simplified forms, which have become hallmarks of the style commonly
associated with their sect, they did not show a particularly keen
sense of history, as is evidenced in your clock face question, nor did
they have a gift for the extension of history into the future, as is
evidenced by their distaste for procreation.

Quite frankly, they put me in mind of the current day inhabitants of
the red areas of the map, excepting the creativity.

"Build it as if you were going to die tomorrow, and as if the object were
to last a thousand years."

Others have posted the appropriate links: clocks use IIII for four, a
usage steeped in history.

When you understand Mother Ann's personal history, you'll understand why
she was inclined to renounce "the flesh."

Sorry, Tom. Your posts are usually smack on target but you blew it with
that one.

--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com

Tom Watson wrote:


put me in mind

Tom, who prefers 4 words where 2 would suffice. (the two words being
the simpler form, "remind me".

Dave

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:19:50 +0100, LRod wrote:

Did Henry install it or was it already there by Cardinal Woolsey?

Henry. He'd already been in residence for some time.

"D. J." wrote in message
...
This is trivial stuff, but I've been making a few Shaker wall clocks and
downloaded a clockface with Roman numerals. Where I went to school, the
number (4) was IV. However on the clockface I have it is IIII.
Thinking it must just be wrong on this particular face, I checked a
couple of photos of clocks at the Hancock Shaker Village and they are
also IIII for (4). Did I learn this wrong or something - I doubt the
Romans changed it in the past 200 years.

Don

Hi DJ -

My vote's for the IIII as the better choice.... If you ever spot a
clock-face in a mirror - you won't mistake the reversed "IV" for "VI"....

Not that Shakers spent a lot of time in bars.....

Cheers -

Rob