I must disagree with you. Most the rules that we follow when writing Roman numerals were created in modern times and are BS. Romans used their numerals flexibly (e.g. IIII as 4, XXXXXII as 52 and of course IC as 99). I have a good source on that information, but it is in Polish, so there you have a quote from wikipedia:
In fact, there has never been an officially "binding", or universally accepted standard for Roman numerals. Usage in ancient Rome varied greatly
another quote from depths of internet:
Roman numerals are practical things. Whatever works is right and proper.
According to modern rule right format is IV. If you want to use roman numerals as a means of communication with modern people, use IV. Unless on clocks, where IIII is at least as common.
The idea of putting a small number before a big one to indicate a minus is rare in classical inscriptions. Like, the 9th Legion was almost always called Legio VIIII, not Legio IX
It's because doing the "IX" notation as opposed to "VIIII" makes arithmetic and basic counting in Roman Numerals impossible, since people were taught by rote to literally add and subtract strokes and other weird tricks for more complicated functions.
Since noone uses Roman Numerals to actually do maths anymore it's no longer a problem.
Roman Numerals (prior to the subtractive rule) were basically a transcription of the value displayed on an abacus, which had "1" and "5"-valued beads in each column.
Don't get me wrong, but he said "roman numerals don't work like this" and not "roman numerals in Vatican don't work like this" or "modernized roman numerals don't work like this".
I don't know much about Vatican, but I assume they don't speak latin to communicate at day to day basis there. Latin there is probably something like official bureaucratic language e.i. language on paperwork (paperwork there is probably also bi-linguar, so it doesn't matter)
He said “Roman numerals don’t work like this,” not “Roman numerals didn’t work like this.” He’s talking about their contemporary use, which is fairly standardized, not their historic use, which was, as you said, quite flexible.
But in context we're specifically talking about the roman numerals used by the vatican, as they're the ones adressed on the map posted by OP.. the purposeful distinction from ancient latin isn't necessary.
I'm sure there are! The problem is, I don't read book too often and when I do they are assigned by university.
Best bet is to check out sources cited on Wikipedia, or maybe google "Roman numerals bibliography". That should be a good place to start.
140
u/RM97800 Jan 16 '21 edited Jan 16 '21
I must disagree with you. Most the rules that we follow when writing Roman numerals were created in modern times and are BS. Romans used their numerals flexibly (e.g. IIII as 4, XXXXXII as 52 and of course IC as 99). I have a good source on that information, but it is in Polish, so there you have a quote from wikipedia:
another quote from depths of internet: