The interesting thing is that the non-Arabic bits of Europe did not
drop Roman numerals like a stone when Arabic numerals became known.
It took a very long time for their use to spread. In the 12th c. you
will find Arabic numerals in astronomical and astrological writings
but the spread of Arabic numerals for other purposes (e.g. numbering
leaves in books or keeping accounts) only slowly took off in the late
middle ages and it was much more common for people to use Roman
numerals for accounts pretty well down to the 18th c., certainly down
to the 17th. Probably the reason is that Roman numerals, esp. in
their medieval versions, e.g. xx with iv written above for 80, do
something that Indian/Arabic ones don't, which is to follow
contemporary speech patterns (4 score; 500 less 3; one hundred
and thirty four or whatever). Triumph of oral culture over
mathematical convenience, perhaps.
Julia Barrow
Surely the Roman system of numerals was the most awkward, difficult and
unhelpful system ever invented? Was Europe not well-advised to drop it
like a stone when the much more sensible Arabic system became
available? Then why do we argue whether it is right to say MIM or
MDCCCCLXXXXIX? Both are lunacy incarnate when compared with the
elegant 1999.
Oriens.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|