* The crossroad here is that we have not IV instead of IIII.
+- Why ?
Along with VIIII,XV and XVIIII
Re: Tarot de Marseille structure numbered cards
2hi Eugim, jmd is probably the best one to answer this, but in the course he taught, he explained this very clearly. I just did a quick google for this subject and found this paragraph;
IIII vs IV
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
IIII vs IV
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
"...he wanted to illustrate with his figures many Moral teachings, and under some difficulty, to bite into bad and dangerous customs, & show how today many Actions are done without goodness and honesty, and are accomplished in ways that are contrary to duty and rightfulness."
Re: Tarot de Marseille structure numbered cards
3* Hi baby !
-The roman notation it has the origin in the italian shepherdess.
They do cuts in a piece of wood to count them.
As we discuss with dear JMD at ATF earlier,that prove that IIII is not IV
Au revoir or may be best to say,see you later mon Madmoiselle !
-The roman notation it has the origin in the italian shepherdess.
They do cuts in a piece of wood to count them.
As we discuss with dear JMD at ATF earlier,that prove that IIII is not IV
Au revoir or may be best to say,see you later mon Madmoiselle !
The Universe is like a Mamushka.
Re: Tarot de Marseille structure numbered cards
4Wha?
"...he wanted to illustrate with his figures many Moral teachings, and under some difficulty, to bite into bad and dangerous customs, & show how today many Actions are done without goodness and honesty, and are accomplished in ways that are contrary to duty and rightfulness."
Re: Tarot de Marseille structure numbered cards
5Whah-Whah ???
* On a Jimy Hendrix Wild things mood baby...
Don t be afraid please-
* On a Jimy Hendrix Wild things mood baby...
Don t be afraid please-
The Universe is like a Mamushka.
Re: Tarot de Marseille structure numbered cards
6??EUGIM wrote:As we discuss with dear JMD at ATF earlier,that prove that IIII is not IV
I'm not sure what we may have discussed, or the context, in which IIII is not IV, except in a more general sense that mentioned that in the additive form, 'IV' can also be read as 'one-&-five' (ie, six).
In general, however, IIII = IV.