User talk:EvelynTaune

May 2023
Hello, I'm Equine-man. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Admiralty Arch have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Equine-man (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry about that. How can i make it constructive? The error is genuine. EvelynTaune (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The rules of Roman numerals were decided after the construction, you cannot change what is written on the Admiralty Arch. Equine-man (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answer. I’m not sure this rule was added after 1910. Roman numwrals are used for hundreds of years before the construction of the Arch. Please provide link where this rule is mentioned. Thanks. You are doing a great job! EvelynTaune (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IX and IV. A third document in the same manuscript uses IX and a mix of IIII and IV. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
 * An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The numeral translates to 1910.
 * Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and E.6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912 instead of MCMXII. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904 instead of MCMIV. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV instead of CMXXV - MCMXXV (925 -1925).
 * So it wasn’t so much as the rule was changed after 1910, but modern convention has stuck with the “rule” of not using 4 in a row. Equine-man (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Well I think the errors found in manuscripts are just errors made by people with not enough knowledge about the logic of numerals. Obviously Romans knew best. So croatians error or americans or even in the ols manuscripts are just spelling errors. I think this needs to be investigated properly to see if the Romans actually had this rule of max 3 simbols. So I think it is worth mentioned on the wikipedia because my 8 years old daughter pointef out the error when we visited Trafalgar Square. Take care. EvelynTaune (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still doesn’t excuse you vandalising the article. Equine-man (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)