Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!stc!datlog!torch!igp
From: igp@torch.co.uk (Ian Phillipps)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: 1990 in Roman Numerals
Message-ID: <604@torch.co.uk>
Date: 22 Dec 89 13:31:46 GMT
References: <859@mti.mti.com>
Organization: Torch Technology Ltd., Cambridge, England
Lines: 11

adrian@mti.mti.com (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''?

Genuine Roman use didn't have ANY subtractive method: thus 1990 would be
MDCCCCLXXXX. Later (mediaeval?) abbreviations allowed <n><10n> to mean 9n,
and <n><5n> to mean 4n. No other contractions are possible, so TeX is right.

MXM "makes more sense", but who said Roman numerals were about sense?