----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Nugent <[log in to unmask]>
> From spending my share of time with medieval mss, as many of you have, it
> seems to me that the strict standardization of Roman numerals is a
creation
> of 19th and 20th century elementary school textbooks, and that there is
> room for flexibility. MIM looks infelicitous to me, but I have no good
> reason whatsoever to defend that. Its meaning is clear enough. (Now,
> perhaps one's measure should be classical or hellenistic Roman
> inscriptions, but that's out of my league; it could be they had it
> standardized and the Middle Ages, as in so many areas, loosened things up
a
> bit.)
OTOH, perhaps not. My beloved and well worn first edition copy is
celebrating its centenary this year, so one can readily find newer (and
perhaps more reliable?) analysis than George Lane's _Latin Grammar_. But
FWIW, he concludes his discussion of numeral notation with a remark that "Of
the two methods of writing the symbols for 4,9,14,19 &c., the method by
subtraction (IV, IX, XIX, XIX, &c.) is rarer and is characteristic of
private, not public inscriptions."
p.s. There is perhaps some learned article on the subject in _Latinitas_
that explains why the LEV opted for MIM. Having no library in hoc exilium
meum I am unable to verify my suspicion.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
