24-Apr-2012, 11:23 AM
I'm right, of course! 
Prior to about 1850, you always put them in the "bigger to smaller" order: MDCLXVI
Then, somebody decided that it would be okay to "shortcut" the system by allowing letters that stood for "1"s in any place to be put to the left of the next two highest numbers, to denote "4" or "9". So, C, X, and I can do this:
IV = 4
IX = 9
XL = 40
XC = 90
CD = 400
CM = 900
Now, granted, I've never seen anyone use CD, but I am SURE I've seen MCM to mean 1900 in a year.
Also, you'll notice that on many clocks they use IX but they don't use IV. They use IIII instead. This might just be aesthetic, or it might be that the "4" thing came later than the "9" thing. [i also noticed that clocks have 4 numbers with just Is, 4 numbers with Vs and 4 numbers with Xs.]
Prior to about 1850, you always put them in the "bigger to smaller" order: MDCLXVI
Then, somebody decided that it would be okay to "shortcut" the system by allowing letters that stood for "1"s in any place to be put to the left of the next two highest numbers, to denote "4" or "9". So, C, X, and I can do this:
IV = 4
IX = 9
XL = 40
XC = 90
CD = 400
CM = 900
Now, granted, I've never seen anyone use CD, but I am SURE I've seen MCM to mean 1900 in a year.
Also, you'll notice that on many clocks they use IX but they don't use IV. They use IIII instead. This might just be aesthetic, or it might be that the "4" thing came later than the "9" thing. [i also noticed that clocks have 4 numbers with just Is, 4 numbers with Vs and 4 numbers with Xs.]
"Bad news, bad news came to me where I sleep / Turn turn turn again" - Bob Dylan