Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
And, iSm, as the various explanations point out, there's a ton of historical precedent for using IIII instead of IV, it's hardly "incorrect".
|
Really? I don't see anything above about IIII's use except as to clockery. Thee's no mention of it ever being used as a legitimate Roman numeral in other contexts, except one brief hint that the God Jupiter may have objected?
But I have to wonder why, if Louis XIV preferred IIII over IV, he wasn't really Louis XIIII?
