Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
August 1, 2012
Image Size
1.4 MB
Resolution
1265×1007
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,455
Favourites
103 (who?)
Comments
12
Downloads
114
×
The Fourth Doctor by killashandra-falta The Fourth Doctor by killashandra-falta
The Doctor and his family.

And, Because many have sent me messages regarding this, let me clear this up:

From:www.straightdope.com/columns/r…

"Why do clocks with Roman numerals use "IIII" instead of "IV"?
March 7, 1986
Dear Cecil:

I hate to see you wasting your time on the insipid questions your readers have been submitting lately. Permit me to pose a question that will have a meaningful impact on today's social problems: Why do clocks that have Roman numerals on the faces always show the number four as IIII instead of IV?

— Jerry M., Hollywood, California

Dear Jerry:

Finally, somebody with a sense of perspective.

I hate to be a wimp about these things, but I'm going to have to fall back on that old standby: They do it that way because that's the way they've always done it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier. Many clock historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance, since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial. (Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble holding its own in this respect.) The only problem with this theory is that the Romans apparently never used IV — it's a relatively modern invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time.

My friend David Feldman, in his book Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, cites an expert who says medieval clockmakers used IIII so as not to confuse the illiterate. You could count, "One, two, three, four! Hey, it's four o'clock!" whereas having to subtract I from V to arrive at the same result was beyond your mental capabilities.

Well, maybe. But let's think about this. The peasants couldn't handle IV, but somehow the IX for 9 posed no problems? Did only literate people go out after eight o'clock? Actually, as I read Dave more closely, he seems to be saying that at one time clockmakers used VIIII for 9. OK, but why do modern Roman numeral clocks use IIII and IX? Tragically, we may never know the truth. History can be like that."

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

1: fav.me/d59gzm3 2: fav.me/d59kzjb 3: fav.me/d59kzs6 4: fav.me/d59lag9 5: fav.me/d59lgea
6: fav.me/d59nozk 7: fav.me/d59nzhx 8: fav.me/d59o662 9: fav.me/d597vhd 10: fav.me/d597vq5
11: fav.me/d597vx0

And... on a side note... can I just say... OMG! Some of these Doctors had WAY too many Companions!
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmadmanwithabox42:
madmanwithabox42 Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2013
it's iv not iiii.
Reply
:iconkillashandra-falta:
killashandra-falta Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2013
Check your clocks. That IS how it is on them.



"Why do clocks with Roman numerals use "IIII" instead of "IV"?
March 7, 1986

Dear Cecil:

I hate to see you wasting your time on the insipid questions your readers have been submitting lately. Permit me to pose a question that will have a meaningful impact on today's social problems: Why do clocks that have Roman numerals on the faces always show the number four as IIII instead of IV?

— Jerry M., Hollywood, California

Dear Jerry:

Finally, somebody with a sense of perspective.

I hate to be a wimp about these things, but I'm going to have to fall back on that old standby: They do it that way because that's the way they've always done it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier. Many clock historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance, since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial. (Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble holding its own in this respect.) The only problem with this theory is that the Romans apparently never used IV — it's a relatively modern invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time.

My friend David Feldman, in his book Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, cites an expert who says medieval clockmakers used IIII so as not to confuse the illiterate. You could count, "One, two, three, four! Hey, it's four o'clock!" whereas having to subtract I from V to arrive at the same result was beyond your mental capabilities.

Well, maybe. But let's think about this. The peasants couldn't handle IV, but somehow the IX for 9 posed no problems? Did only literate people go out after eight o'clock? Actually, as I read Dave more closely, he seems to be saying that at one time clockmakers used VIIII for 9. OK, but why do modern Roman numeral clocks use IIII and IX? Tragically, we may never know the truth. History can be like that."


Reply
:iconjackofalltrades0097:
jackofalltrades0097 Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
awww, my favorite one!! <3
Reply
:iconjmbenny63:
jmbenny63 Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Student Writer
Great! ~
Reply
:iconcrazyartist12:
crazyartist12 Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
love him.
Reply
:iconerividma:
Erividma Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012  Hobbyist
Tennant may be super-hot and make me go weak in the knees, :horny:
but Baker is my FAVOURITE Doctor! :squee:
Reply
:iconkillashandra-falta:
killashandra-falta Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012
Tennant :drool:
Reply
:iconerividma:
Erividma Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012  Hobbyist
OMG YUSSSSSS :drool:
Baker's really fun though. :dance:
Reply
:iconmountainlygon:
MountainLygon Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
IV, not IIII.
Reply
:iconkillashandra-falta:
killashandra-falta Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2012
That is true... But, it's not so on clocks. (I have no idea why.)
Reply
Add a Comment: