If it is correct to change the (Roman) 'V' in the word Romanorvm to a 'U', then why don't we change the 'vee' in the (Roman) 'eight to a 'u'? (i.e UIII) (Note: Roman numbers are comprised of alphabet letters such as 'I' 'V' and 'X' as well as 'M' and 'C' etc.) Sorry, I am not being 'smart'. I don't have the answer, but if someone else does, I would like to hear it, please?
Interesting.. The V in Romanorvn is used as a letter but the V in VIII (8) is used as a numeral. Maybe that changing of letters does not apply to the numerals. Looks nicer as a numeral V A little off the subject but it reminds me of a joke a CT member shared once while discussing the V and U question - A Roman walks into a bar and holds up 2 fingers. Then he says "5 beers please"
Partly habits, partly a question of character so to say. Not that I have a definite answer, but when you typed "Romanorvm", you used letters that in ancient Rome did not actually exist. So you "should" have written "ROMANORVM", except that using ALL CAPS is not exactly popular nowadays ... As for V as the numeral 5, when the U/V differentiation was introduced in the Middle Ages, you would find u/U and v/V with that meaning for some time, with "V" being the most common variety. Seems it stayed that way until the Indian-Arabic system became popular. Christian
@> Christian. I take your point, however, (I think) there is something in the rules about not using 'all' capitals because that is 'akin' to 'shouting'.
This is a matter of typestyle. Just as the earlier Romans used V for both consonant and vowel, the Byzantines used u for the numeral V. You need to be a little careful looking for these since they also had a u with curved over top that meant six.
Has anyone ever seen IV used on coins for 4? I have seen XIV for 14 but usually see 4 represented as IIII.
Would you count LEGIO IV on a legionary denarius? http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2308786 I have no idea at all why IIII was generally used instead of IV but would be interested to know. Here's a Domitian with COS IV: http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1487187
Thought: if the messages on coinage are being sent to a large mass audience, then to communicate '4', wouldn't IIII be more clear than I-V = '4'. (Many people were uneducated at the time...)
Wiki has a paragraph regarding this: Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, seem to show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of (or even as well as) subtractive forms such as IV and IX. Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document. "Double subtractives" also occur, such as XIIX or even IIXX instead of XVIII. Sometimes V and L are not used, with instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX.[8][9] An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The number is 1910, for which MCMX would be more usual Such variation and inconsistency continued through the medieval period and into modern times, even becoming conventional. Clock faces that use Roman numerals normally show IIII for four o’clock but IX for nine o’clock, a practice that goes back to very early clocks such as the Wells Cathedral clock.[10][11][12] However this is far from universal: for example, the clock on the Palace of Westminster in London (aka "Big Ben") uses IV.[11] Similarly, at the beginning of the 20th century, different representations of 900 (commonly CM) appeared in several inscribed dates. For instance, 1910 is shown on Admiralty Arch, London, as MDCCCCX rather than MCMX, while on the north entrance to the Saint Louis Art Museum, 1903 is inscribed as MDCDIII rather than MCMIII.[13]
That is an interesting question. I see IIII VIR when referring to the number of moneyers, such as under Julius Caesar, but then Antony's coinage employs LEG IV. I've also see VIIII used for 9 instead of IX and even IIX instead of VIII for the same issues, such as Antony's legionary issues. Considering that Antony's issues are trying to convey the exact same message as a design topic and were issued at the same time, it would lead me to surmise that the number format was interchangeable. Not my coins, btw:
I semi remember from Latin class (almost 5 decades ago) that you had to know the word to pronounce it right. In English, how do you pronounce the "c" in cent and cat. I could try to look up the V vs U answer in my 8th grade Latin book, but ... I tore up the book in class to show my dislike for the subject. I think that my interest in Roman coins is some kind of cosmic payback. Since I do not have a book, I did the next best and googled an answer - V's and U's Q - I've seen the following combinations of letters used by various Latin texts and scholars: V's and U's (virumque), just V's (virvmqve), just U's (uirumque). Which letter scheme is correct? A - The Roman alphabet originally did not have separate symbols for 'U' the vowel, and 'V' the consonant. (They also did not have separate symbols for 'I' the vowel and 'J' the consonant). Since they considered 'U' and 'V' the same letter (which they made like a V), and since their alphabet was all capitals, our Julius Caesar would be their IVLIVS CAESAR. http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=3916 two different IVs in names and an XVI obv
"I've also see VIIII used for 9 instead of IX and even IIX instead of VIII for the same issues, such as Antony's legionary issues." Very interesting. I never noticed this. It could be that there was flexibility in the standards of use. However, I wonder if these are merely the product of an engraver who attention was divided or if the engravers math skills simply did not add up.
I read somewhere that the letter V was pronounced "oo", so would Julius Caesar sound something like Joolioos Kaiser?
If you have some time, you may want to listen to episode XLII of this podcast series. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/emperors-of-rome/id850148806?mt=2 It has a good discussion on Latin pronunciation.
As Doug noted, in the Byzantine period the Roman "V" for 5 began to be shaped more like a modern "U". Take a look at this 5-nummia piece of Tiberius II (578-582): 15 mm. Sear 438.
I wish they wouldn't. Big Ben is actually the bell not the clock. http://www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk/bigben.htm
To keep things as complicated and confusing as possible, let's not forget the third modern descendant of the Latin V, our letter "double U" which we write as two ligated V's (W).
