Rimski IIII umesto IV na ciferblatu !

**stanis** · 28.9.2012., 20:35

Pozdrav svima ...
Pratim vas forum bogami vec duze vreme ,i ovom prilikom Vas sve pozdravljam!
Imam jedno pitanje na koje nisam nikada imao odgovor,pa kao sto se i u naslovu vidi ...zasto je broj 4 rimski napisan nepravilno kao IIII umesto IV ?

Verujem da je u pitanju interesantna prica...

**sima hrabri** · 28.9.2012., 20:47

vec je bilo reci o tome ranije na forumu, evo nekih linkova sa objasnjenjima:

link 1

link 2

ukratko, s drugog linka:

"IIII" on clocks

Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this:

Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.^[22]
Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.^[23]
Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.^[24]
Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced—a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs,^[25] so clock makers need only a single mould with a V, five Is, 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 IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different patterns.

Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.

**stanis** · 28.9.2012., 23:49

Znaci postoji vise teorija ...vrlo interesantno.
Ovo sa jupiterom mi je najlogicnije (1,2,3,bog,6,7...)
Hvala na linku !

**RUS** · 29.9.2012., 0:14

Po meni je ovo najlogicnije:
Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.

**Neša** · 29.9.2012., 1:22

Osim estetskih objašnjenja, postoji još jedno koje se sa njima uklapa. Naime, rimska četvorka se mogla pisati i kao IIII, premda je to ređi slučaj. Inače, postoji i teorija po kojoj su brojevi nastali od uprošćenih crteža koji predstavljaju prste na ruci. Petica (V) se može tumačiti i kao ispružena šaka sa pet prstiju, ali svedena na minimalan broj linija, dok desetka (X) predstavlja dve takve šake.

**stanis** · 29.9.2012., 7:20

Po meni je ovo najlogicnije:
"Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry."

Ovo nisam ni video ! Tacno, logicno je 3 puta po 4 niza analognih brojeva.
I ovo sa prstima na ruci...logicno.

**anbeast** · 22.12.2013., 22:59

Pozdrav, satomanke i satomani! Long time no see... Vaš omiljeni bradonja se vratio! Ok, ok, razumem Vas, i meni je drago. J Obrišite te suze radosnice, imamo ovde ozbiljna pitanja da razmotrimo. Nemamo vremena za gubljenje. Odmah prelazimo na stvar. Vidim da su i neki od vas primetili da je na pojedinim satovima sa markerima ispisanim rimskim ciframa, broj "4" umesto "IV" “pogrešno” ispisan kao: "IIII". Lično sam takvo označavanje broja "4" prvi put video na nekom satu dalekoistočne provenijencije, pa sam nakon 8 sekundi dubokog razmišljanja, odbacio viđeno kao još jedno nevešto kinesko kopiranje. Međutim, na forumu se pojavila ova tema te sam, ažuran i ljubopitljiv kakvog me je tvorac dao, prionuo na težak zadatak da cenjenim satoljupkama i satoljubima donesem konačan odgovor na ovo teško pitanje. Zavirio sam u mnogobrojne zakutke mreže nad mrežama i sa tog avanturističkog putovanja doneo istinu. Istinu koju ću sada ekskluzivno podastrti pred Vas, narode satofilski. Istinu koja glasi: NIKO BLAGE VEZE NEMA ZAŠTO SE NA NEKIM SATOVIMA BROJ 4 PIŠE KAO "IIII", A NE KAO "IV"!!! Raznih verzija odgovora na pomenuto pitanje ima desetine i nijedna se ne da, makar sa približnom pouzdanošću, dokazati.
Eto, The Truth is out There, narode satofilski… Hodite prostranstvima internetskim, izaberite svoju istinu! Niko neće moći da dokaže da niste u pravu.

Bradonja je govorio! Hvala na pažnji i doviđenja!

OK, ajd’ sad ozbiljno… Iako, bez sumnje, mnogi članovi foruma vladaju engleskim jezikom u dovoljnoj meri da razumeju tekstove sa linkova koje je postavio uvaženi član Sima Hrabri, rešio sam da te tekstove prevedem, malo dodatno istražim i prezentujem cenjenom publikumu u formi OVOG članka.