Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, unfortunately with
insufficient lucidity. In the middle ages people didn't only
think in terms of single digits, tens, hundreds and so on but also in
twelves, scores, grosses as well. They could involve several of these
concepts simultaneously, cf. the 12th c English Exchequer with its
mixture of different sorts of arithmetical unit. So simply saying
1-3-4 wouldn't automatically suggest to a medieval person 'one
hundred and thirty four'
Julia Barrow
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 11:17:22 -0800
Subject: Re: numerological trivia
From: Steven Botterill <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
>I would have thought that Arabic numerals had a very simple and
>transparent way of writing one hundred and thirty four, namely 134.
>Much more in tune with speech patterns than cxxxiv.
>
>Oriens.
But the digits alone read "one-three-four"; in the Roman system they read
"one hundred [c] - thirty [xxx] - four [iv]" - isn't that the point?
Steven Botterill
Associate Professor of Italian Literature
Acting Chair, Department of Italian Studies
Acting Coordinating Chair, Italian/Scandinavian/Slavic Administrative Cluster
Department of Italian Studies
6303 Dwinelle Hall #2620
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-2620
(510) 642-6246 (voice)
(510) 642-9884 (FAX)
http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/italian/botterill.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|