« Gazebo Renovation: The Saga Concludes | Main | You. Me. Dark Side. Now. »
February 15, 2009
Learning Roman Numerals
When I was in school, I wasn’t what you’d call a dedicated math student, and so I never properly learned all the ins and outs of Roman numerals. I got the basics, of course, but by “basic,” I mean, “my confusion set in around the number XL.” If you’re into crossword puzzles, not knowing how to write large numbers in Roman numerals is a major weakness, something that makes a gimme into something you have to try to suss out through clues going the opposite way, which might work or might not. I have coped with this in various ways since I became obsessed with NYT crossword puzzles, mostly by asking Jason how to write the numerals, since someone at some point in his youth clearly beat him until he memorized the process.
I’m XXXV now, though, so I figured it was time to learn how to make Roman numerals all by myself. I did what any sensible person would do: I checked out a library book.
The first book I checked out was Roman Numerals by David A. Adler and illustrated by Byron Barton. Published in 1977, this book still works beautifully. As the preface notes, Barton “has created an amusing Roman stonecutter” who guides the reader through Adler’s clear and informative text. Adler provides nifty little mnemonics for remembering V and X, which I already had memorized, but the mnemonics might be downright handy for the book’s intended fourth grade audience. Equally handy is his suggested activity which encourages readers to use cards to practice putting numerals together.
I was working with this book one morning, when Lucas said, “Hey, I just got a book on Roman numerals. Did you know that most of the numbers at the beginning of chapters in books are Roman numerals? That’s why I want to learn them.” He then in one breath expressed his disappointment that the chapter headings in The Series of Unfortunate Events were not Roman numerals and his certainty that the book he had was “way newer” than the one I had.
The next day, he brought me his book, Fun with Roman Numerals by… DAVID A. ADLER and illustrated by Edward Miller III. Published in 2008, Fun with Roman Numerals is, indeed, newer than Adler’s 1977 effort, but it’s a different book entirely—and not necessarily better. The newer title is missing the nifty mnemonics, which is a loss, but on the plus side, Adler suggests an activity using coins to construct Roman numerals that is nothing short of brilliant. Fond as I am of Barton’s stonecutter in the 1977 effort, Miller’s illustrations feature gladiators and pigeons and even the occasional lion and tiger. The book also has a swell chart of the numbers up to M on the back cover. Personally, I got something out of both titles, and I think it’s well worth keeping a copy of both in library collections.
After I went through these II books, I got to wondering if there was anything else out there, which is how I came across Roman Numerals I to MM, published by Arthur Geisert in 1996. People generally don’t know Geisert’s work, but I’m a fan. (I particularly love The Giant Ball of String. It contains one of my all-time favorite picture book sentences: “At noon, the Cornwallians were going to dedicate their ill-gotten ball of string.” Don’t you want to run out and read the book RIGHT NOW?) Geisert’s work isn’t showy, but it’s thoughtful—and as an author/illustrator, he is as good with words as he is with the visual elements of his work. Roman Numerals I to MM is, at its core, an I Spy book for Roman numerals. It’s not the book I’d want to *learn* Roman numerals from, but it’s a great book for practicing your new mad Roman-numeral-creating skillz. Also—and SHAME on no one else for thinking of this—the page numbers in the book are all Roman numerals.
Basically, if I wanted to get a solid handle on Roman numerals, which I did, or if I was a teacher, which I’m not, I’d want all three books at my disposal. Follow them up with some worksheets or, better yet, crossword puzzles, and you can be on your way.
Posted by adrienne at February 15, 2009 06:52 PM
Comments
This is always such a saga for me when picking out a watch or clock. The Roman numerals are so pretty and the designers have to work so hard to space them out properly on the clock face. But I might really want to know what time it is...
Posted by: Heidi at February 16, 2009 10:10 AM
And what's with some clocks having 4 as IIII instead of IV?
Posted by: chuck at February 16, 2009 02:45 PM
I'm convinced that the local schools aren't teaching children Roman numerals anymore, since I've had to explain them to kids or teens a few times this year. Unless, of course, they didn't pay attention for that class. Not that something so dreadful would ever happen...
Posted by: Olivia at February 17, 2009 07:17 AM
I wish I knew my Roman numerals too,especially when I do crosswords, it would help! I give you credit for getting out a book to learn them,I just plod along in the crossword till I get it by accident,ha,ha.........Maybe when Eli goes to school like Lucas, he can teach them to me!!
Posted by: Bri's Mom at February 17, 2009 11:37 AM
Heidi, Roman numerals on a clock would totally BLOW LUCAS'S MIND. He can barely read analog clocks with numbers.
Chuck, According to the 1977 book, the Romans originally wrote "IIII" until they figured out the whole let's-subtract-instead thing.
Olivia, I'm not sure whether it's part of the curriculum anymore or not. Lucas said he hasn't yet studied them in school, but he may have just spaced out that day.
Linda, I've already been using my new skills in the crosswords. :)
Posted by: adrienne at February 19, 2009 10:32 AM
Good for you, now I've got to get on the stick and learn them too!! Although i think your crosswords are harder than mine...........Just trying to keep the brain active,to keep Altzeimer's at bay!!
Posted by: Bri's Mom at February 19, 2009 12:34 PM
Adrienne, knowing Roman numerals would definitely help with the NY Times crossword puzzle; I've forgotten everything over 10. We did order one of the books you mentioned through a Scholastic catalogue recently; it's probably the one published in 2008.
I don't know Geisert's work; will check it out. Thanks.
Posted by: Susan at February 19, 2009 04:08 PM
Linda, I'm still can't finish Sundays.
Susan, Oh, I think you'll enjoy Geisert--he's a nice combination of dry humor and delicate, detailed illustrations.
Posted by: adrienne at February 19, 2009 08:20 PM