on a Roman Numral clock why is 4 said as IIII instead of IV?

Question

i just dont understand!!!!

Answer 1

NP you are very right that most clocks have IIII and not IV but I can't find the answer either not even on Wikipedia they do say :

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. There are several suggested explanations for this, several of which may be true:

The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which IV would not.
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty 'I's, four 'V's, and four 'X's, so clock makers need only a single mold with a V, five 'I's, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
The IIX and one of the IX's are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen 'I's, five 'V's, and four 'X's, possibly requiring the clock maker to have several different molds.
IIII was the preferred way for the ancient Romans to write 4, since they to a large extent avoided subtraction.
It has been suggested that since IV is the first two letters of IVPITER, the main god of the Romans, it was not appropriate to use.
The I symbol would be the only symbol in the first 4 hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next 4 hours, and the X symbol only in the last 4 hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.
IV is difficult to read upside down and on an angle, particularly at that location on the clock.
Louis XIV, king of France, preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained. [citation needed]

Answer 2

Isn't it amazing how many people 'know' that all clocks have IV and IIII doesn't exist? They just can't be bothered to look at a damn clockface. Almost all clocks that have Roman numerals have IIII for 4. I admit to having seen one with IV once, but that really is rare. The convention for clocks is IIII. Check it out, you people! But then perhaps you can't spell 4 in Roman. I seem to remember that it was the preference of a French king, so blakenyp has probably come up with the right answer.

Answer 3

I have a clock with roman numerals on it that has IV for 4 instead of IIII. I've also seen clocks with IIII too. I think it's just a matter of preference.

Answer 4

We talked about this one day in school. Our teacher said someone at one time, had tried to divide the clockface into either 3 or 4 sections, each containing the same sum of numbers but the only way it could be done, and each space come out evenly, was to make the IV into IIII. That probably isn't the reason it was done but it brought that to mind.

Answer 5

Actually, on most Roman numeral clocks, it *is* shown as IV. Once in a while it's IIII, but that is not usual. (maybe because it takes up too much room?)

Answer 6

Maybe the person who made your clock was illiterate in Roman Numerals. Mine has IV after the III and before the V.

Answer 7

eh?i didn't get it!maybe you're right or wrong about that.'coz in our Roman numeral clock,or OTHER Roman num.clocks is like this:

IV.

others is this:

IIII.

But the real is IV,not IIII,other children thinks after III is IIII.Now you UNDERSTAND???

Answer 8

It's a choice by the clockmaker. IV is the most common, but IIII isn't unusual.

Answer 9

Bool

Answer 10

Sorry to say, but only "IV" is correct. It's that simple. A clock maker can do whatever he/she wants, but "IV" is the only way to print the numeral "4" in the Latin language.