quote:

---

jincay wrote:

I have no idea, Yellow seems to have made up his own version of roman numerals....I can only guess this is 'pump it up 8'

---

quote:

---

MyersA5 wrote:

quote:

---

jincay wrote:

I have no idea, Yellow seems to have made up his own version of roman numerals....I can only guess this is 'pump it up 8'

---

Actually YOU are using the MODERN interpretation of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Numerals

Read the "IIII vs. IV" section:

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, IVPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used 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 IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. 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.

---

quote:

---

Yellow 5 wrote:

Just wait until I write the date...

---