 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010How do I write dates in Roman numerals?
1999 = MCMXCIX 14 = XIIII Are you supposed to write dates in Roman numerals in the same order that you write the day, year and month in America (month, date and the year) or are you supposed to do it like it's done in England (year, month and then the day)? In other words, how would I write January 14, 1999 in Roman numerals? Like this: January XIIII MCMXCIX, or like this: MCMXCIX January XIIII or both or some other way? Thanks again. > In other words, how would I write January 14, 1999 in Roman numerals? I've never seen anything but the year written in Roman numerals. If you need to write the complete date don't use Roman numerals at all. -------------------------------------------------------------- Native speaker of U. S. English. Not a grammar expert. RayH: http://www.englishforums.com/user/nlrg/profile.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- As an aside, 14 is XIV, not XII -- that's 12. -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random! Grammar Geek: http://www.englishforums.com/user/hvrb/profile.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- As an aside, 14 is XIV, not XII -- that's 12. EDIT: Sorry - I took so long to hit "post" that I become redundant. -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random! Grammar Geek: http://www.englishforums.com/user/hvrb/profile.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- In article <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753f7b@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > 1999 = MCMXCIX > > 14 = XIIII Not normally: write "XIV" unless you're aiming for an especially quaintly-archaistic effect. A mediaeval accountant might write "xiiij".  SignatureOdysseus > In article > <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Odysseus I am going for the mediaeval effect. I thought it might be amusing sending people letters and stuff dated with roman numerals. > > In article > > <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I am going for the mediaeval effect. I thought it might be amusing > sending people letters and stuff dated with roman numerals. affect, i mean In message <b48d2151-f340-4a1f-8569-b6adad1d6eae@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Chris Tsao <rigida7147@aol.com> writes >> > In article >> > <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >affect, i mean No, you didn't. You were right the first time (I think!). SignatureIan >> > In article >> > <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >affect, i mean "Effect" is right for your sentence. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 04:05:33 -0800 (PST), Chris Tsao > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thank you. >> In article >> <e8355f6c-0307-48a6-9d14-f9b517753...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I am going for the mediaeval effect. I thought it might be amusing >sending people letters and stuff dated with Roman numerals. In which case, why not go for the Latin date: To-day, 14.02.2010, xiv.ii.mmx would be: Ante diem xvj kalendas martias anno Domini MMX, abbreviated to a.d xvj kal. Mart. AD MMX A table of the Latin Kalendar is at: www.episc.org.uk/pub/lat-kal.pdf John **Replies to <u04jag@lineone.net> have a 1Kb maximum filter. Please ask for alternate address if you wish directly to reply, include a + in the subject line. Messages to i12 address are normally deleted** SignatureJohn A Green Leigh (Lancashire) or Aberdeen > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 04:04:34 -0800 (PST), Chris Tsao > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Around a decade ago, I got the idea to use the Year of the World to type dates. I posted a question about it in here back on May 2, 2002. I have these notes below saved in a file to help me figure out the math when needed. the Year of the World Anno Mundi (Latin: "in the year of the world") abbreviated as AM or A.M., refers to a Calendar era counting from the Biblical creation of the world. Anno Mundi [L, year of the world]. The year since the creation of the world, according to biblical revelation, abbreviated AM. Medieval scholars were not uniform as to when this might have been. The Irish Annals of the Four Masters posited 5090 BC; e.g. 1000 BC would be 4090 AM. The influential Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede (8th cent.) suggested 3952 BC. Also widely cited were 5200 BC and 5198 BC. >> <rigida7...@aol.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >AM. The influential Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede (8th >cent.) suggested 3952 BC. Also widely cited were 5200 BC and 5198 BC. The Jewish year is 5770. This was calculated by adding up the ages of people listed in the Jewish Bible, that is, the ages they were when they had children themslves. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > 1999 = MCMXCIX > 14 = XIIII > Are you supposed to write dates in Roman numerals in the same order > that you write the day, year and month in America (month, date and the > year) or are you supposed to do it like it's done in England (year, > month and then the day)? > In other words, how would I write January 14, 1999 in Roman numerals? > Like this: January XIIII MCMXCIX, or like this: MCMXCIX January XIIII > or both or some other way? Thanks again. There used to be a custom, which my mother (born 1911) used to follow, of writing dates in lower-case Roman numerals, Today (BrE date format) would be xiv.ii.mmx With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >> 1999 = MCMXCIX > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Like this: January XIIII MCMXCIX, or like this: MCMXCIX January XIIII >> or both or some other way? Thanks again. Didn't the BBC date programmes made in 1999 as IMM, or am I dreaming? Some time in the 1970s they stopped putting, say, 1975 in favour of MCMLXV. It was obviously to make it less obvious to the public how many repeats they were showing, but they offered some utterly spurious reason. > There used to be a custom, which my mother (born 1911) used to follow, > of writing dates in lower-case Roman numerals, Today (BrE date format) > would be xiv.ii.mmx I've never seen that, but I sometimes use lower-case Roman numerals for the month, as in 14.ii.2010. Usually, though, I write it in full: 14 February 2010. Signatureathel >> There used to be a custom, which my mother (born 1911) used to follow, >> of writing dates in lower-case Roman numerals, Today (BrE date format) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the month, as in 14.ii.2010. Usually, though, I write it in full: 14 > February 2010. The official way of writing dates in parts of Eastern Europe (the parts I know of were Bulgaria and the Soviet Union) was very similar - the month was in Roman numerals. Today's date would be written as 14.II.2010. All official documentation (both hand-written and typed) had the dates in that format. That's the only way I ever remember writing dates, and there was a curious trick for hand-writing the roman portion too. One did not write the individual letters completely - the II would be written out as two vertical strokes, ||, and then one horizontal line would be placed above, and another one below below the entire roman numeral group, making it visually a single glyph. SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. >>> There used to be a custom, which my mother (born 1911) used to follow, >>> of writing dates in lower-case Roman numerals, Today (BrE date format) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >horizontal line would be placed above, and another one below below the >entire roman numeral group, making it visually a single glyph. I think that's how most people write Roman numerals - write all the letters, then draw a bar above and below. SignatureIan On 14 Feb, 10:52, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > >> 1999 = MCMXCIX > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > athel I have seen that quite often and I think it looks quite good. 14 ii 2010. > Are you supposed to write dates in Roman numerals in the same order > that you write the day, year and month in America (month, date and > the year) or are you supposed to do it like it's done in England > (year, month and then the day)? Slight correction: In the UK (which is what I think you meant by "England") I don't think the sequence year, month, and then day, has ever been a very popular way of writing a date: it is more often written as day, month, year, leading sometimes to potential confusion with the USA habit of month, day, year. I'm glad you only wanted to substitute Roman numerals for the day, month, and year numbers in a standard, modern-day format for the date: if you had wanted to write the date in a way that might have been done in Ancient Rome times, it would have been much more tricky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >> Are you supposed to write dates in Roman numerals in the same order >> that you write the day, year and month in America (month, date and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >written as day, month, year, leading sometimes to potential confusion >with the USA habit of month, day, year. The sequence month, day, year is often used in the UK for the issue dates printed on newspapers, but only with the month as a word. For example today's Sunday Times has "FEBRUARY 14, 2010" on the front page. All other pages are dated "14.02.01". >I'm glad you only wanted to substitute Roman numerals for the day, >month, and year numbers in a standard, modern-day format for the date: >if you had wanted to write the date in a way that might have been done >in Ancient Rome times, it would have been much more tricky: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>Slight correction: In the UK (which is what I think you meant by >>"England") I don't think the sequence year, month, and then day, has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > example today's Sunday Times has "FEBRUARY 14, 2010" on the front > page. All other pages are dated "14.02.01". You are correct. I should have clarified that I meant number-only dates. However, I seem to recall that in private correspondence, I have rarely had letters that are not written, say "14 February 2010" from UK people. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. > 14 = XIIII If that floats your boat. Mine is floated by XIV. GFH In message <df369dbe-681f-476b-9f9d-a0134dea52db@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, GFH <georgeh@ankerstein.org> writes >> 14 = XIIII > >If that floats your boat. Mine is floated by XIV. If I remember correctly, although rarely used, 'IIII' is indeed an alternative to 'IV'. SignatureIan > In message > <df369dbe-681f-476b-9f9d-a0134dea52db@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, GFH [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If I remember correctly, although rarely used, 'IIII' is indeed an > alternative to 'IV'. Generally only seen on the dials of grandfather clocks. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> 14 = XIIII > >If that floats your boat. Mine is floated by XIV. Both XIIII and XIV are lopsided. Boats like that would not float too well. This is nice and symmetrical: XIIIIIIX. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.