i suppose the alleged 'scrambling of roman numerals' is a reference to ff x-2.
No, I already explained this earlier.
there is no such thing as 'IIII' or 'VIIII', only 'IV' or 'IX', respectively, is correct.
This, and the similar post before it, are not accurate. Here's a bit from
http://www.wilkiecollins.demon.co.uk/roman/intro.htmThe strict rules about Roman numerals have been used only relatively recently. In earlier periods, although the subtractive principle was used, it seems that it was an alternative rather than compulsory and other forms such as VIIII for 9 and even IIXX for 18 are found. At any date exceptions can be found, as these four examples from different periods and all in Rome itself, show.
BTW, almost all clock faces with Roman numerals use IIII for 4.
This comment was edited on Aug 11, 18:47.
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life