Talk:Nicknames: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Cute Idea!: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Cute Idea! == | == Cute Idea! == | ||
But wildly inaccurate. | But wildly inaccurate. Talossan Numerals, indeed. As you suggest, there are actually some rules to Roman numeral order. You must separate the ones, tens, hundreds, and thousands as separate items -- and no decimals. That means that 49 is XLIX (40 + 9) and never IL. Same goes for 95 (XCV), 99 (XCIX), 199 (CXCIX), 500 (D! LOL - nice try.), 994 (CMXCIV), 995 (CMXCV), and 1950 (MCML). | ||
However, 4 (IV), 5 (V), 210 (CCX), 550 (DL) are absolutely correct (Ieremiac'h, Viteu, Carlüs and Danihel). {{:User:sp/sig}} 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | However, 4 (IV), 5 (V), 210 (CCX), 550 (DL) are absolutely correct (Ieremiac'h, Viteu, Carlüs and Danihel). {{:User:sp/sig}} 14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:54, 14 March 2015
Cute Idea!
But wildly inaccurate. Talossan Numerals, indeed. As you suggest, there are actually some rules to Roman numeral order. You must separate the ones, tens, hundreds, and thousands as separate items -- and no decimals. That means that 49 is XLIX (40 + 9) and never IL. Same goes for 95 (XCV), 99 (XCIX), 199 (CXCIX), 500 (D! LOL - nice try.), 994 (CMXCIV), 995 (CMXCV), and 1950 (MCML).
However, 4 (IV), 5 (V), 210 (CCX), 550 (DL) are absolutely correct (Ieremiac'h, Viteu, Carlüs and Danihel). ~ Sevastáin Pinátsch 
14:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)