2007-10-12 05:22:16 · 16 answers · asked by jdjackson74 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
The roman numeral for 4 is IV not IIII.
2007-10-12 05:26:13 · answer #1 · answered by Brian K² 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a consumer product designer, and have studied extensively on the designs of objects. When Roman numerals were first applied to face clocks for a sense of evoking traditional classicism during the Neoclassic Period in art and design, the "IIII" was used for the number "4" to visually bring balance to the aesthetical composition of the face of the clock in relationship to the mass of its counterpart, the number "8", being the Roman numeral "VIII", located directly on the opposite half side to the "IIII", and both mutually placed in the bottom sector of the clock's face. This brought an optical equilibrium to the clock's face design. Within the passage of time the "IIII" was eventually substituted with the alternative option for the number four, "IV", in the more modern design versions when asymmetry superseded symmetry in the new emergent design movements and styles that boldly moved away from the traditional symmetry of classicism.
2016-04-08 05:19:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Romans wrote our number 4 as "IIII" as well as the commonly-used "IV." The widespread use of "IV" didn't catch on until at the earliest the Middle Ages. There are several theories as to why the Romans preferred IIII, one of which is that the god Jupiter was abbreviated IV (because curvature is difficult in metal letters).
2007-10-12 05:43:51 · answer #3 · answered by Robert 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since I was in the clock selling business for a few years, this question came up often. The answer is that it is shown as IIII so that children and less intelligent folk could more easily understand the time.
2007-10-12 05:31:43 · answer #4 · answered by skwonripken 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know, but I have a watch that has IIII instead of IV and I thought it was a cheap fake.
2007-10-12 05:27:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's about 6 valid suggestions at http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx
2007-10-12 05:28:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never seen one that had IIII to represent 4.
Probably an ill-educated clockmaker.
2007-10-12 05:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by Stuart 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This question was asked a couple of weeks ago. The consensus at that time was "to balance the heavy VIII on the left face".
2007-10-12 05:56:39 · answer #8 · answered by cvandy2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im in Ireland, I never noticed that so I just went into the kitchen to check and wow you are right! wtg. I have no idea why soory
2007-10-12 05:26:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not like that on any clock I've ever seen.
2007-10-12 05:25:31 · answer #10 · answered by Gabi ng Lagim 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋