@Trex202@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world • 4 months agoRoman numerals could be based on what your hand looks like when you count.message-square29arrow-up158file-text
arrow-up158message-squareRoman numerals could be based on what your hand looks like when you count.@Trex202@lemmy.world to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world • 4 months agomessage-square29file-text
minus-squareRhaedaslinkfedilink17•4 months agoIV and IX don’t make sense when it could be done more intuitively by IIII and VIIII.
minus-square@GuyFawkes@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish15•4 months agoFewer axe marks. IIII = 4 IV = 3 IX = 3 VIIII = 6
minus-squareRhaedaslinkfedilink14•4 months agoSure, but OP is talking about fingers as representation, not markings. Your point is exactly why they did it in writing.
minus-square@Trex202@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilink5•4 months agoIf thumb and index make V, then there’s only 3 fingers left.
minus-squareRhaedaslinkfedilink6•4 months agoI see what you’re saying, using one hand for the entire sequence. XI is still a pain. The real problem is that there is no mention of doing this in any Roman text. A bit of an omission, or was it a state secret?
IV and IX don’t make sense when it could be done more intuitively by IIII and VIIII.
Fewer axe marks.
IIII = 4 IV = 3
IX = 3 VIIII = 6
Sure, but OP is talking about fingers as representation, not markings. Your point is exactly why they did it in writing.
If thumb and index make V, then there’s only 3 fingers left.
I see what you’re saying, using one hand for the entire sequence. XI is still a pain. The real problem is that there is no mention of doing this in any Roman text. A bit of an omission, or was it a state secret?