dysfunctional press
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 03:36 PM
Original message |
will they still be using roman numerals starting with super bowl 49? |
|
super bowl IL will probably be popular in illinois- but how many people can really get behind super bowl L?
i'm guessing that they'll switch over to arabic numerals for the golden anniversary.
|
petronius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 03:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. 40 will be fun for the sloganeers - Super Bowl 'Extra Large' |
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
petronius
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
12. Jeepers - how many of these darn games have there been? |
|
:blush:
It seems like only yesterday they were in the 20s...
|
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-30-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. this one on sunday is XLI |
Left Is Write
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
13. I can think of two possibilities for 'extra large'... |
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. They are already using roman numerals. I think that they might switch to arabic numerals for 50 |
|
Otherwise we'll see starting this year:
XLI XLII XLIII XLIV XLV XLVI XLVII XLVIII XLIX L
There won't be an IL, and I doubt superbowl L would look good on merchandise. Perhaps they'll use the improper XXXXX
|
dysfunctional press
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. they've always used roman numerals...that's my point. |
|
but for some reason, i thought that 49 would be written as IL...but since it's XLIX, i'm guessing that it will still be used- but when they get to 50, they'll switch over to arabic for at least a year or three- L LI LII just don't have the same cache as the ones with all the x's.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Do you think there will be no "IL" because the SuperBowl people won't want to use it? |
|
That would be correct way - but if you think the Super Bowl people won't want to do it that way, I think you're right - I can see them going for the more bombastic XLIX, even if it is wrong.
Maybe for 50 they'll use XLX :rofl:
|
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. How is IL more correct that XLIX? What conventions are you going by? |
Gormy Cuss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. "IL" could not be more correct than "XLIX" |
|
XLIX is standard for later Roman history but variants do pop up such as XXXX for 40. I've never seen inventive subtractive notation like "IL" but my Latin exposure was limited to undergrad level - it may appear in early literature that way because the notation was not standardized for some time.
|
Orsino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:38 PM
Response to Original message |
7. And the Republicans will boycott 99. n/t |
dysfunctional press
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
why would 99, or XCIX, be offensive to the pugs?
|
Gormy Cuss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-29-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democrat party? :P
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 08:28 PM
Response to Original message |