What you Were Never Taught about Roman Numerals

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 36

  • @ahmetberatsahin001
    @ahmetberatsahin001 2 роки тому +2

    You are the master of the language! Not only do you know the language, but also the background of it - which made me speechless at the moment! Love your good work

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  2 роки тому +1

      Wow, thank you! I'm glad you liked the video! I try to learn many aspects of each language I learn. You might also be interested in my video on How Latin Became the Romance Languages: ua-cam.com/video/izNkyCkhmCo/v-deo.html

  • @kulloth
    @kulloth 3 роки тому +6

    The point you've made about the nice additive properties of the Roman numerals is fascinating, I had never noticed that. I think it is a neat fact that if we do not consider the subtractive notation (i.e. if we consider IIII standing for 4 instead of IV, etc.) then the numeral-order in a Roman number is as flexible as the word-order in a Latin sentence because of commutativity of addition.
    Also, I think the Discord link in the description is expired :(

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому +1

      That's a good point! Thanks for letting me know about the link!

    • @kulloth
      @kulloth 3 роки тому +1

      @@EasyLatin Will you posting a new link somewhere anytime soon? I'd really be interested to join to practice with fellow fans :D

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому +1

      @@kulloth This should work now: discord.gg/Pa4EuSwGQ2

  • @trien30
    @trien30 2 роки тому +2

    The twelve dots system for 1/12 is neat if you think of 12 inches in 1 foot.

  • @rushunnhfernandes
    @rushunnhfernandes 3 роки тому +4

    I find it quite strange that Hindi/Marathi and other Indian languages that originated from ancient Sanskrit(which seems to have no connection to Latin) also have the same pattern that you mentioned at the end, namely 18,19 are named as '2 before 20' and 'one before 20'....
    I wonder if all these languages were actually connected once upon a time !

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому +4

      You hit the nail on the head! It is hypothesized that there was a language most of the European, Iranian, and Indian language evolved from. I plan to make a video about it, but if you're dying to find out about it, look up the Proto-Indo-European language.

    • @rushunnhfernandes
      @rushunnhfernandes 3 роки тому +1

      @@EasyLatin oh I had no idea, thanks! Very interesting, because it would seem like civilizations were more disconnected from each other on the past, so a common language would be very counter-intuitive!

  • @bigscarysteve
    @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +4

    I knew there was a lot more to Roman numerals than we're taught in school, but I've never been able to find the specifics of it. There obviously had to be a way of doing math problems with Roman numerals. I mean, after all, what did they do before the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system?

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому

      Good point!

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому

      @@EasyLatin I thank you for your discussion of fractions in Roman numerals. I'd never seen that before.

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +1

      I knew about four in Roman numerals being "IIII" on clock faces. Now I know that's not the only place that that's true.

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +1

      The Hindu-Arabic numeral system was introduced to the Western world by Leonardo Fibonacci with the publication of his book _Liber Abaci_ in the year 1202. However, it was not popularized in the West until Adam Ries published a series of books in the 1500's.

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +2

      When I was in sixth grade, way back in 1973, there was a section in my math book about something they called "base five." My teacher was compelled to teach it because it was there in the book. It was obvious that she didn't understand it. As a result, I was completely baffled by it. When I brought my homework home, my father tried to help me with it. My father had been a math teacher before I was born--and he was baffled by it! We finally got through that section in the math book without the teacher, my father, me, or anybody else in the class learning anything. Later on, when I was in college, I had a professor teach the class about the binary number system. He was competent, and when we did that, I exclaimed to myself, "Oh--that's what base five was all about!" And then I realized that a competent math book would have begun by introducing the binary number system and then move on through bases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, then to the decimal system we're all familiar with, and then on to bases 11 and 12 and maybe a few more just to prove the point. And the point was that numbers don't necessarily have to be written in the decimal Hindu-Arabic numeral system we're all familiar with from our daily lives. That was what they called "the New Math" back in the day. One irony of the lesson was that we already knew that numbers didn't have to be written in Hindu-Arabic notation because we were already familiar with the Roman numeral system--even if the teacher hadn't formally pointed that fact out to us. Another point of the lesson was that numeral systems don't have to be decimal. I had frequently heard the statement that the genius of the Hindu-Arabic system was its introduction of a symbol for zero. That's true enough, but I failed to see the import at the time. As Paul Harvey would say, "And now for the rest of the story!" The other genius part of the Hindu-Arabic system that I didn't get at the time is that a symbol for zero allows you to have columns--that is, a ones column, a tens column, a hundreds column, etc. In a non-decimal system like this, you still have columns, but the values of the columns higher than the ones column are different than in the decimal system, e. g. in the binary system you have a ones column, a twos column, a fours column, an eights column, a sixteens column, etc. The other irony of my sixth-grade math lesson was that the book called the system we were using "base five"--but it was base six! The authors obviously didn't understand it completely! No wonder our educational system is in trouble--and has been for decades! (Don't get me started on how I was taught grammar in English class!)

  • @St1cKnGoJuGgAlO
    @St1cKnGoJuGgAlO 3 роки тому +2

    I X C and a Dagaz rune stolen from the Norse. Heard that. Thanks for the video friend.

  • @zyke02
    @zyke02 3 роки тому +3

    oH mY gOd, He SpOkE tHe eViL nUmBeR, CanCel HiM

  • @RarePartsRetailerFLA
    @RarePartsRetailerFLA Місяць тому +1

    I speak Portuguese. It's quite easy to lear numbers.

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  Місяць тому +1

      Yes, the Romance languages help a lot

    • @RarePartsRetailerFLA
      @RarePartsRetailerFLA Місяць тому

      @@EasyLatin Thank you for your kindness in answering me.
      I believe the difficult I had to learn English is proportionally as yours to learn Latin.
      I enjoyed your UA-cam channel.

  • @tspark1071
    @tspark1071 3 роки тому +1

    Gratias

  • @bigscarysteve
    @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +3

    Ancestors? You mean descendants.

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому +1

      😅 You're right! Even native speakers make mistakes

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +2

      @@EasyLatin A few years ago, a statue was erected in my town of the town's founder. On the base is an inscription identifying him as "the direct descendant" of a number of people living in the town today!

    • @EasyLatin
      @EasyLatin  3 роки тому +1

      @@bigscarysteve Hahaha, I'm glad I'm not the only one who made that mistake!

    • @bigscarysteve
      @bigscarysteve 3 роки тому +1

      @@EasyLatin A friend of mine posted a picture of herself with her four children on her Facebook page. Some friend of hers posted a comment saying, "What a wonderful heritage!" I wanted to reply, "You mean POSTERITY!"--but I didn't want to insult a stranger who I knew was a friend of a friend, so I said nothing--and roiled inside myself!

  • @Hoo88846
    @Hoo88846 3 роки тому +1

    666, Mark of the Beast according to the Book of Revelation chapter 13 in the Bible. A number to avoid ;)

  • @ignaciorochasantos6830
    @ignaciorochasantos6830 2 роки тому +1

    Good introduction DCLXVI 666 /,,/