## Coming soonish: Roman numerals

Salvete omnes,

I've been working hard adding sentence translations, hopefully your inboxes aren't bursting with translation acceptance emails. One thing I'm adding that I'm excited to tell you all about are Roman numerals to the English to Latin sentences. In the first half of the course I've already added them. Much like how you can enter 5 for five on the Latin to English, you should be able to input IV or IIII for Quattuor. If you run into any where it isn't accepted, don't hesitate to report away.

Gratias vobis ago- for all your hard work in testing the course.

Valete

Colin

## 36 Comments

- 155

Today is XII/IX/MMXIX. Julius Caesar was born in XIII/VII/C. Rome was founded on XXI/IV/DCCLIII. Rome (west Rome) fell in CDLXXVI. They are the important dates of Rome. Does anyone have more? (Eg. Brutus, Nero)

Is the original system going to be used or the reformed one from later on? https://youtu.be/Q5_2o8MITH4?t=76

I'm adding IIII and IV as well as IX and VIIII plus any of the subtractive numbers for 19, 29 etc. Funnily enough though, using IIII instead of IV makes addition using Roman numerals stupid easy. Just literally write the two numbers together in descending order from largest to smallest numerals then simplify. XVIII plus LXIIII = LXXVIIIIIII = LXXXII.

Subtraction (again, using IIII = 4, VIIII = 9, etc.) is also easy: Write both numbers out, then strike common symbols out of both numbers until the smaller number is gone. Break up symbols in the larger number as needed, so if you don't have enough I's in the larger number, turn a V into IIIII or an X into VIIIII (etc.).

On the other hand, multiplication is awkward, and I don't even want to think about division.

- 777

After reading this post I got all enthused and put **"IV"** in my translation the next time a "four" came up. Predictably, DL marked it wrong and I immediately clicked the report button. But then I reflected. My sentence was from Latin to English, where we really wouldn't use a Roman numeral. My apologies.

- 22

Yes, it's not like other numeral systems than base 10 are useful or logical. For example base 2 in digital computing, base 7 for weekdays, base 12 for months and hours, base 60 for minutes and seconds or base 360 for angles.

- 22

I'm not so sure humans are implicitly base 10 creatures (except for our number of fingers and toes). It seems logical to use the base 10 for us, but I would argue that is only because of convention.

If we had grown up using base 6 (or another number) that would seem the most logical.

Also, if we really were such base 10 creatures, we would change to have a 10 hour clock, 10 months of the year, 10 minutes per hour, 10 seconds per minute, 10 day week and so on.

Hmm, I don't think your point flies for time. Base 12 for time works well since we can divide it up so many ways: 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all divisors. 10 only has 2 and 5. Similarly for 60, since it's divisible by 12 and therefore has that same useful property. Base 10 is still much more useful for counting large numbers and (metric) unit conversions since you can just move the decimal around.