Each I is a finger, V is the thumb and index. X is crossing your index and middle finger.
Masters in classics here. They literally are, even the number 4. Look at a watch with Roman numerals and notice that the 4 is “IIII”.
I = 1 finger
…
V = open hand
…
X = two open hands next to each other
Edit to add:
Why do you get “L” for 50 and “C” for 100? The C “centum” was written with two reversed “L” shapes. Take away half of that, and you are left with L.
Why do you get “M” for 1,000 and “D” for 500? Same reason–doubled up reversed D shapes. Take away half and you’re left with a D.
Thank you!
One of my undergrad professors said that they look as such because I, V and X can be easily marked using axes.
Or clay-incising tools. Or pieces of charcoal. Or chisels.
L, C, M also make sense
That makes sense
IV and IX don’t make sense when it could be done more intuitively by IIII and VIIII.
Fewer axe marks.
IIII = 4 IV = 3
IX = 3 VIIII = 6
Sure, but OP is talking about fingers as representation, not markings. Your point is exactly why they did it in writing.
If thumb and index make V, then there’s only 3 fingers left.
I see what you’re saying, using one hand for the entire sequence. XI is still a pain. The real problem is that there is no mention of doing this in any Roman text. A bit of an omission, or was it a state secret?
I read that’s how it was done for math, the exception being things like headlines.
Pretty interesting idea, can only do up to XII on one hand though
They counted Base 12
Wow okay, that’s a pretty convincing coincidence then
Base XII?
I’ve always thought of them pretty much as fancy tally marks. The V and X aren’t even that different from how we do a strike-through every 5.
X is just 2 V stuck together. Same for C being 2 L stuck together.
X is just 2 V stuck together. Same for C being 2 L stuck together.
Wtf why did that go through 3 times?
deleted by creator
X is just 2 V stuck together. Same for C being 2 L stuck together.
deleted by creator
X is just 2 V stuck together. Same for C being 2 L stuck together.
Maybe, but it’s not the most likely explanation IMO.
Why not just count with the number of fingers (and thumbs) shown the same way everyone has done since forever?
They use straight lines because if you’re marking anything which isn’t paper with anything which isn’t a pencil curved lines are a bitch. Straight lines could be a stylised representation of a finger, but they could also just be straight lines. Like @Endmaker@ani.social said, if all the lines are the same length then you can make marks with axes, but the same applies when using a flattened reed to make impressions like with cuneiform.
I’m not sure if the romans were doing it but other base 12 societies pointed at the knuckles of their fingers with their thumb to count. It feels intuitive and natural. You could transact with someone who didn’t share your language and who had never seen that system of counting before.
You might be right, but it seems unlikely to me.
Huh, it actually does kinda work. Could theoretically count 0 - 12 using one hand.
The only downside is that 4 (IV) / 6 (VI) and 9 (IX) / 11 (XI) look identical and are based on which direction you’re viewing from
You could turn your hand around to get the single finger on the correct side
When you count to 100 you make C shapes with your hand?
Did you forget about L/C/M?
If I want to write my birth year, 1987, in roman numerals, I would need to write it like this:
MCMLXXXVII
To clarify:
1000+(-100+1000)+50+10+10+10+5+1+1
L: Hand in an L shape C: Hand in a C shape M: index, middle, and ring fingers pointed down
They didn’t have the year 1987 a thousand years ago.
You do understand that the number 1987 could also represent the amount of inventory someone had?
Or have a lot of other uses?
