From: Marnen Laibow-Koser (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 06 2007 - 07:48:11 CDT
On Aug 5, 2007, at 10:25 PM, William J Poser wrote:
> It is interesting that the numbers in the photograph at:
> are not written the same way as described in the Wikipedia article.
> That is, 14 is written 10-1-5 and 19 is written 10-1-10, as they
> would be in Roman numerals, but that is not what is described
> in the Wikipedia article.
Yes, these seem very much like Roman numerals written with Chuvash
symbols, don't they? Assuming the Wikipedia article is accurate, the
systems seem to be close enough to begin with that some hybridization
might not be surprising. Hmm.
There may be another influence at work here too: in areas where
Cyrillic script is used, Roman numerals seem to have historically
been something of a vexed question. X and I are not usually
problematic, but Cyrillic script doesn't have a V. Where the Roman V
wasn't available, I understand izhitsa was traditionally used, but of
course that became obsolete after the Revolution. I seem to remember
seeing a typed Russian document in the early 1990s where Ð£ was used
for V (so I guess we're talking Ð†, Ð†Ð†, Ð†Ð†Ð†, Ð†Ð£, Ð£, Ð£Ð†...).
So perhaps the use of Chuvash \ for V in what are otherwise Roman
numerals is partially due to V being an unfamiliar glyph in a
Cyrillic script area?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 06 2007 - 07:49:47 CDT