And not "IIL"?
Will next year's Super Bowl be "XLVIV", "XLVIIII" or "IL"?
Will next year's Super Bowl be "XLVIV", "XLVIIII" or "IL"?
Why is it Super Bowl XLVIII?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Because that's how Roman numerals work. Next year's should be XLIX.
Yeah, pretty much.
It's stupid though, why not just call it "Super Bowl 2014" (or 2013 because it's technically the 2013 season)?
Because "bow chicka bow wow"
Why did a lot of movies up until the 80s or so use Roman numerals for copyright dates?
I suspect it has something to do with the supposed prestige of Roman numerals, and regarding football, also some sort of analogy to gladiators in the arena.
Ummm.... because it's the 48th Super Bowl?
Thanks. Answered my question perfectly.
Well, what more is there to say? It's a convention which has been in place for quite a while. It's I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X. So it's VIII for 8. It's X, XX, XXX, XL and L (I'm only counting up to 50 because I can't be bothered to type out the rest). So it's 40 (XL) + 8 (VIII) this year and next year it'll be XLIX.
Once they get to 50 the Roman numeral thingy will look a bit silly and decidedly un-grand to modern audiences, however. Superbowl L just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Once they get to 50 the Roman numeral thingy will look a bit silly and decidedly un-grand to modern audiences, however. Superbowl L just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Wouldn't 49 be IL? IIL wouldn't be 48 because there's never 2 negative modifiers preceding.
Of course that would be Super Bowl Illinois, which would be a little silly.
Of course that would be Super Bowl Illinois, which would be a little silly.
Well, technically you can name it whatever the fuck you want, it's not like the Romans would care, but no, they wouldn't have written "49" as "IL".
Not traditionally, no. Since we're still in the 40s XL should be used even if IL is obviously shorter than XLIX.
There's a reason why we mostly use Arab numerals for everything practical.
No, because that pattern only happens with numerals of the same or adjacent magnitude -- IV (4), IX (9), XL (40), XC (90), CD (400), and CM (900) are the only standard subtractive pairs. In Roman times, usage was flexible enough that IL might have occasionally been used for 49, but under the standardized system we use, it would have to be XLIX. Basically the rule is to substitute each nonzero digit separately, so it's treated as 40 + 9 rather than 50 - 1.
A
Amaris
Guest
Knowing this country, we'll just say "Superbowl XXXXX" and add that it's "too extreme!" or something.
We're full of shit, we are.
It's all very gladiatorial.
Something that answers the question beyond "because that's the way it is." Becuase obvioulsy that's the way it is, but WHY? More what are the "rules" when it comes to using Roman Numerals on why is "XLVIII" more correct than "IIL" other than one looking better.
This:
Better answered the question, thank you Christopher.
Which is just what I said in my second post. Both are just an elaborate way of saying, "because that's how Roman numerals work" but whatever.
Similar threads
