 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Roca temperature dial | Main | Next: Microsoft anti-piracy banner
February 23, 2006 12:03 AM
Broken: Roman numeral on clock
Bob Crump points out:
I received this clock from my company a year ago before Christmas. It's been on my desk for over a year now and I finally looked at the four.
Whomever produced the clock seems to have their own version of the Roman numeral character for four!
Actually, if you take a look at pretty much any clock with Roman numerals on the face, you'll find that "IIII" is the convention for clocks. I don't know why, it's just tradition...
Target sells a very large clock, also with that no.4 , for $130 it doesnt sell well, so it and its variant 4 float around teh store for awhile.
It's all about the Wikipedia...according to the article on clock faces, the IIII is meant to produce symmetry between the IIII and the VIII. Sure, why not. But not broken.
That is not broken, that is by design. Clocks with roman numerals traditionally use "IIII" instead of "IV" to represent "four", mostly for aesthetical reasons. See http://members.aol.com/lolathrop/roman/iv.html for an extensive discussion on the topic.
As mentioned, Wikipedia explains why. Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#IIII_or_IV.3F
Excerpts:
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the god Jove (and later YHWH). The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times.
And:
Clock faces that are labelled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for 4 o'clock and IX for 9 o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not in the other.
It's definitely not broken, just tradition.
There is a legend somewhere that one of the Kings of England preferred the look of the clock face with IIII over IV, and insisted that in future his clocks should use this notation. Probably only anecdotal though
My friend and I had an ongoing discussion about this in high school. We read somewhere that the idea was that IIII would be easier to distingush from VI. We didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. But it is an interesting piece of trivia, and, if it is broken, it's been broken for a very very long time.
The only "problem" I see by using this method is that you no longer recognize the four by counting the 'I's. You recognize the four by virtue of its place between three and five.
Since the order of numbers in our numbering system is not likely to change -- ever -- I would dub this not broken. Though interesting, and I've been wondering about this myself for a long time.
Some people claim that the Romans used IIII on sundials before they switched to IV, and the tradition carried forward from there. I think that this watch, though, is a rough copy of fancier pocket watches, where the IIII is bigger and looks slick. On a wristwatch, it's a little goofy looking. Here's one on ebay, just to show what i'm talking about with the nicer pocketwatch face:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5075383279&category=398
I did not know this origin was in contention, as I assumed what I'd heard was factual. I'd heard that the King was annoyed because he continually confused IV and VI, and demanded that hereafter, all clocks would use IIII instead of IV.
As an interesting note of syncronicity, I was at a friend's house just this weekend past, and in his kitchen I noticed that his clock used IV. We were so engrossed in convo, that I never happened to have a chance to point it out.
IIII = 1+1+1+1=4
IV = 5-1=4
it's pretty obvious that they both equal four.
But I must say, on a clock, it just looks nicer to have the IIII.
And here's another reference ...
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153.html
Looks like someone should have done a little googling ...
Thanks, everyone (besides the people who said over and over that "IIII"=4). I have been wondering this about my kitchen clock for a while.
I have a much better example now: Oxford library, Balliol College, MS. 350, fol. 3v. The Domesday book. 11th century or so, has IIII all over the place instead of IV, including use in numbers higher than 10, i.e. 14 shows as XIIII. So, apparently it was cool back then as well.
Definitely not broken at all, but correct. IV is what is broken if you are going with traditional Roman notation. The so-called subtractive notation was introduced in medieval times and had nothing to do with the Romans. If you can to visit any ancient Roman ruins, you'll see IIII all over the place.
The Super Bowl should stop using Roman numbers, now that we've gone to 'Extra Large'. Many people are only familiar with roman numbers I, V and X. In fact, I'm surprised this last super bowl was not labelled 'XXXX'.
Interesting. I tend to automatically fix errors when I read, so I likely wouldn't have even noticed this. Thanks for the fun trivia.
I always wondered why Roman numerals on clocks are "upside down" at the bottom (5,6,7) as you go around the circle, but on conventional clocks, the 5,6,7 face the correct way to the reader. Any ideas why...????
I saw this in an Imponderables question and answer book. IV (remember: J and U weren't letters back then so they used I and V instead) was the first 2 letters of Ivpiter, which, usng our letters today, is Jupiter (the Roman god of gods.)
I saw this in an Imponderables question and answer book. IV (remember: J and U weren't letters back then so they used I and V instead) was the first 2 letters of Ivpiter, which, usng our letters today, is Jupiter (the Roman god of gods.)
Not broken. I have seen both IV and IIII on clocks and I have seen both used as 4 in roman numerals several times. Though I'd say IV is more common and more standard, IIII is still acceptable.
Definitely not broken, for reasons stated above. In fact, you'll find almost invariably that clocks with IV instead of IIII are cheaply made by manufacturers for whom timepieces are not a specialty.
And Bob, what's wrong with "whomever"?
THIS is broken:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4741340.stm
The clock shown there seems to have 3 o'clock as it's top or "12".
Doesn't anyone remember elementary school math class? Numerals are not to be repeated more than three times. Since IIII is, obviously, four times, BROKEN.
Geez - what a bunch of sophisticates - Tiffany & Co. has been using this dial design in their Atlas line for decades!
_@_v - my high school physics teacher had a clock that ran "counter to the commonly perceived direction associated with clocks"....
_@_v - in other words "backwards"....
Once upon a time, a pope (don't know which), ordered a watch to a watchmaker, who was the best in town, although he was analphabete. When the clock was ready, number 4 was made in a wrong way - IIII instead of IV.
The pope, very strict, ordered the watchmaker’s execution. As a protest, all the other watch-makers have never made number 4 in the "correct" way again, only in the "wrong" way.
Since then, all watches which show roman figures present number 4 as "iiii", independently from its brand or quality.
"I always wondered why Roman numerals on clocks are "upside down" at the bottom (5,6,7) as you go around the circle, but on conventional clocks, the 5,6,7 face the correct way to the reader. Any ideas why...????"
I have a hypothesis:
Roman clocks often took the form of sundials, and were thus positioned horizontally, rather than vertically. Sundials can be viewed from any angle.
Has anybody noticed that number three also is faulty? It goes: I, II, IV, IIII, V
Instead of: I, II, III, IV, V
If you use 4 "I"s, then the characters needed to make the full face are 4 "X"s, 4 "V"s and 20 "I"s, which means you can make the clock face with 4 sets of an X, a V and 5 "I"s, which means your mould for making the sets is much smaller.
Haf, you're seeing things. The III appears to you as IV because the minute hand overlaps it. What you see as III following what you see as IV is really IIII, which is the whole point of this post.
And Bob & Nigel, will someone please tell me what you think is broken about "whomever"?? See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whomever. Proper English is not broken.
"Has anybody noticed that number three also is faulty? It goes: I, II, IV, IIII, V
Instead of: I, II, III, IV, V"
No, the hand makes it look that way
Think about this, then, if you dare:
Why was the year 1999 was not written MCMXCIX - very ugly and hard to figure out) as opposed to a more simple IMM or MIM ?
You're all wrong! This is a Corporate Daylight Savings Clock showing where all those seemingly made-up taxes on your paycheck go to cancel out the
extra hour of labor you put in without knowing it.
When your boss goes for a coffee break that lasts an hour, you can't blow the whistle on him. He'll just point to the clock and tell you it's still three o'clock.
Actually, the Roman sundials all featured the Roman character "IV" for the number "4". When (italics) clocks, began to be manufactured, the English kept the Roman "IV" symbol and the French (and Spanish) began using the "IIII" notation. This was primarily because the French felt that the symbol "IV", printed correctly on the face of the dial (which was, in effect, upside down, as one posted pointed out) looked too confusing. Particularly to the less-than-educated (it appeared as an "I" next to an upside-down "U").The Spanish followed suit and it remains that way on many, many clock faces the world over.
"And Bob, what's wrong with "whomever"?"
"See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whomever. Proper English is not broken."
According to that very site, "whomever" is the "objective case of whoever." The problem is, it's being used as the subject, not the object.
Not broken! Using III or IV to represent the arabic numeral 4 is completely legitimate. Both instances can apply.
Posted by Paul:
THIS is broken:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4741340.stm
The clock shown there seems to have 3 o'clock as it's top or "12".
--------------------------
I believe they just rotated the picture to coincide with the information contained in the article
I heard it was done for economies of ordering.
If you use iiii, then the symbols ordered would be 4 v, 4 x, and 20 i, but if you used iv, you got odd numbers which didn't get such a good deal ( 5 v, 4 x, and 17 i)
It's amazing, so many people trying to be so smart . . . .
The "rule" of not having more than 3 letters repeat themselves when using Roman Numerals was not an ORIGINAL rule, it's a modern rule. The Roman's themselves used IIII, not IV. The clock is correct.
I'd suggest the reason why they use IIII, is as others have suggested, it adds to the readability of the face. Ever look at III and IV when they are written and placed at an angle such that of the angle of the position where the "4" belongs? It's difficult to read on small faces at the very least.
Hey I have an old cuckoo clock that my grandmother brought over from Germany and it has the same thing.
"According to that very site, 'whomever' is the 'objective case of whoever.' The problem is, it's being used as the subject, not the object."
You're right. I hadn't looked beyond the implication of the other posters that it wasn't even a real word.
"Think about this, then, if you dare:
Why was the year 1999 was not written MCMXCIX - very ugly and hard to figure out) as opposed to a more simple IMM or MIM ?"
That is because they don't want to write IV becuase they will write it upsidedown and offend Jupiter (also known as IVPITER). You can see IV on some clocks, but most clocks say IIII. Other things with roman numerals often say IV. If you use INTERCAL, you can turn on clock-face option to display IIII instead of IV if you want. If you turn on wimp-mode, it will display 4.
sorry but you are wrong. Most clocks with roman numerals are created with IIII for the 4 to create symmetry.
With so many comments pointing out that IIII has been used by clock and watch makers for centuries for the numnber 4, and the turkey writing "whomever" where the nominative is called for, I think the only thing "broken" is this web-site that does not take this "broken" item off. I just read about this site in Popular Science, and it's a waste of time.
Tom H
This is funny! I really didn't think it would stir up that much controversy. I guess Roman paramedics DON'T refer to IVs as fours after all. I personnally have wondered why we still use an archaic system that has no way to denote zero.
By the way, whoever posted the image added the second paragraph (I hope this sentence is correct). Danbury made the clock - it just washed out with the flash.
I once read that in England, back in the day, clocks had the IIII because the commoners could not perform the math V-I, but needed to know when tea time was nonetheless. Tea time being, 4 p.m.
a bunch of roman numeral clocks do that. they - for some reason - continue in a circle instead of staying straight up. the IIII is easier to distinguish from the VI of six than IV for four.
Interesting thread. I grew up in England with a master carpenter. He always refereed to clocks having IIII instead of IV as having an "English clock face" Perhaps it's not surprising that those with IV are so rare here then?
Pretty much all Brand Name Watches use the IIII numeral. I should know I'm Swiss LOL I also find it odd but that is just the way it is... even on veeeery expensive watches.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Roca temperature dial | Main | Next: Microsoft anti-piracy banner
You've heard of pig latin? Well that's pig roman numerals.
Posted by: gmangw at February 23, 2006 12:29 AM