Talk:Latin numerals

z

Possible typo in trīgintuplex
I have never seen the number 30 being spelt with a short i in any system; it is always trīgint-. In the table under multiplicative numbers, it is spelt trigintuplex, with a short i, which I think is incorrect, especially considering the fact that trīgintuplus is spelt with a long i. I will replace the short i with a long one, and I invite someone who knows the definite spelling to revert it if it be incorrect. Since neither trīgintuplex nor trīgintuplus occur in any classical work in any case, it is impossible to look up the correct spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.108.46 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirect war
Hello editors of this page,

While reviewing this page, I noticed that there's been an effort to restore this article as a stand alone article and to revert it back to being a redirect. This has happened several times. I see no reason why there should not be an article which deals solely with the language and pronunciation aspect of this subject. I've made some changes to the hat notes to make them more clear and suggest interlinking the articles. There's also no categories on this article. Please add appropriate categories. Edaham (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Latin numerals (linguistics)
this would be a good title for this article. If it were expanded thus, then we could briefly list words like equals, plus, minus etc and make it a more distinct article from the Roman Numerals article with more scope for expansion in the field of spoken Latin. If the last editor to reinstate this article feels that this would be appropriate then I'll move the article accordingly. Edaham (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved as per the above (WP:BOLD) Edaham (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The parenthese referring to linguistics seems quite unnecessary: Latin usually means the language, and Roman numerals are commonly called exactly like that, not Latin numerals. By any means, Latin numerals cannot be kept as a redirect, but must either be a mere disambiguation page, or an article with a hatnote, as it was after my last edit, the latter solution being preferrable due to the aforementioned rareness of using the expression Latin numerals referring to numeric characters. --Abderitestatos (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * it seems unnecessary to you because you are familiar with the subject. You are also probably correct. However I think it’s a useful piece of clarification for the average reader and clarity should be high among our objectives. I hope you can see eye to eye on that because I think it will serve to better distinguish its place among our articles and hopefully put an end to some of the continual reverts we’ve been seeing on this page. Edaham (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * on a side note we do also have an article Numerals (linguistics) and whilst we aren’t obliged in any way to follow this terminology across articles, it would be appropriate in this case to add the aforementioned article as a “see also” in order to further reinforce the distinction. Edaham (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not think that the "average reader" does even know the term Latin numerals, as the characters are usually introduced in school as Roman numbers or Roman numerals; the few readers who are searching for those under the entry Latin numerals will find easily the right article via the hatnote or the link at the top of the list, which itself provides much information about Roman numerals itself. The present redirect from Latin numerals to Roman numerals on the other hand downright hides this article from readers. --Abderitestatos (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * it sounds reasonable to propose the Latin numeral redirect for either deletion or turn it into a DAB page. Suggestions? Edaham (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirects
on the whole of wikipedia there was one article Sectors of Islamabad which required linking to "Roman Numerals", where "Latin Numerals" had been used in error. There now appears to be no redirect issue with this page title. Edaham (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion about this page
is at Talk:Roman numerals. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Too many articles?
There seem now to be too many articles discussing Latin numbers. As well as this one there is a long section in Latin declension (where the lay-out seems better than the one here, but most of it is not directly relevant to declension as such) and even some in Latin grammar and Latin syntax. Perhaps there could be some amalgamation. For example, the best parts of each article could be assembled here. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is needless duplication of the material on Latin numerals, so I have transferred the tables from Latin declension to here. They don't belong in "declension" since most of them don't decline. As for which set of tables to choose, the ones in Latin declension seemed better and more attractive. Also there is now scope to add yet further sets of numerals, for example the set prīmārius, secondārius, tertiārius etc., which has not yet been added, and it also allows editors to say a little bit about how each set was used and to give examples from Roman authors. Kanjuzi (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue which you have researched extensively. I have no objection to what you are proposing. Suggest BOLDLY making the edits you have in mind. Edaham (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Milia, genitive, or accusative
The section on 'milia' says "When it is plural, the noun it refers to is put in the genitive case", but this seems to only be the case when the noun comes directly after 'milia'. Allen and Greenhough says: "After mīlia the name of the objects enumerated is in the genitive." and gives two examples "duo mīlia quīngentī mīlitēs or duo mīlia mīlitum et quīngentī 2500 soldiers". Could this be clarified? --Jim Killock (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Tables
I noticed there are 8 tables in this article containing a lot of duplicate wiki markup, which I as a software engineer find terribly inefficient, so I made a template Template:Latin_numerals/1to1000table as part of a refactoring effort. I only had enough free time to make the template and some minimal documentation, so if someone wants to tidy up the documentation, give the template a better name, or implement it into the 8 tables in this article, be my guest. Braden (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I implemented one of the eight tables (revision). I think it looks good.
 * I had enough free time to do the other seven. I got my vim flow on and did the latter half in two minutes each.

How did the graphic representations come about & when?
The article almost only deals with how numbers work in spoken Latin, but not with their graphic representation.

I, II, III look intuitive. C and M are initials. L and D are none of that.

Where does the round M in the article come from? When was it used?

The way larger numbers were represented has varied through time. Why and how? There's nothing about the origin and evolution in the article. An encyclopedia needs that. Arminden (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)