Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!dhosek
From: dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (D.A. Hosek)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: 1990 in Roman Numerals
Message-ID: <3549@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 89 00:22:35 GMT
References: <859@mti.mti.com>
Reply-To: dhosek@jarthur.UUCP (D.A. Hosek)
Organization: Pitzer College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 20

In article <859@mti.mti.com> adrian@mti.UUCP (Adrian McCarthy) writes:
>Here's an interesting question somebody brought up here.  Will 1990
>be expressed as MCMXC or MXM in roman numerals?  TeX says MCMXC, but
>MXM seems to make more sense.  Is there a ``standard''?

Well, if you say MXM, ancient Romans will be able to figure out what
number you're referring to (our else, they'd figure you're a Hebrew
who hasn't got the hang of vowels yet). However, TeX is correct. 
Despite their appearance, Roman numerals are essentially a decimal
system. i.e., 990 (to simplify the example) is really CM XC or put
together CMXC.

1999 will look especially pretty: MCMXCIX

-dh
-- 
"Odi et amo, quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
   nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior"          -Catullus
D.A. Hosek.                        UUCP: uunet!jarthur!dhosek
                               Internet: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu