Verhovayak Lapja, 1940. július-december (23. évfolyam, 27-52. szám)

1940-08-08 / 32. szám

How Did the Romans Addf Subtract and Multiply With Roman Numerals ?

It has been somewhat of a popular mystery how the Romans added, subtracted multiplied with the clumsy signs or symbols which we call Roman numerals. The fact is the Romans had no convenient symbols to indicate mathematical processes and operations. Originally every process and operation was expressed in words of full length. Their mathematical calculations were never simplified further than to abbreviate centum, 100, to C; mille, 1000, to M, and so on. Figuring was awkward business in the time of Ceasar. Practically all calculations were performed on the abacus, an apparatus resembling the Chinese suan pan or the bead-and frame affairs now used in kindergarten work. The Romans’ abacus contained seven long and seven short rods or bars. There were four beads on each of the long bars and one on the short ones. The beads on the short bars denoted five. The first long bar was marked I, the second X, the third C, and so on up to millions. Now suppose Caesar wished to write the number 25. He would push up two X-beads and pull down the V-bead on the corresponding bar. If he wished to subtract three from 25 he would push up the V-bead and two I- beads, leaving the two X- beads where they were. There were additional bars for making calculations involving fractions. The Romans were not reputed to be good mathematicians and they contributed little to the science.

SHE'S HAPPY

What do you suppose is causing the beaming smile on this young woman’s happy countenance?

Her husband is in the 1940 Verhovay Membership Contest, and she is blissfully thinking of the top cash prizes, any one of which would go a long way toward paying off their new home.

Of course, if hubby wins one of the five automobiles, that will be all right, too, as they have wanted a car for some time.

Well, work hard hubby, and keep that radiant smile on her face.

ORIENTAL FAIRY TALE

Gay streets are strewn with blossoms bright, Colors gleam with wondrous light,

From lilies white and violets blue,

Big red roses, jasmine too.

There beside the deep, blue sea A palace stands like ivory;

Red-sailed ships go drifting by While the sun sets in turquoise sky.

—Washington Bureau

To Our Contributors

Contributions intended foi the August 29th issue should be in before or on August 24th.

No guarantee of publication In particular Issue can be given for material received after that date.

Nightingales now make their song;

Lovers wander all night long;

Boys in velvet coats are bold,

Girls in crimson, green and gold.

Dawn brings out a sunrise song;

We dance and sing the whole day long;

A Rajah weds the princess fair Acclaimed by subjects everywhere!

—Amelia Nyers.

(American First Serial Rights)

Dear Members, Readers and Contributors

In the last several issues of our English Journal there has been wrangling between the pro-new Journal—antiold Journal and pro-old Journal—anti-new Journal factions on the merits and lack of merits, respectively, of the now more than seven month old program to improve and enlarge the scope of the English Section of the Vernovay Journal, with those elements favoring and supporting the new Journal apparently the stronger of the two opposing opinions.

Since this movement to make the new Journal more readable, more diversified and more interesting has been entrusted primarily to and in the leadership of the editors, it follows naturally that they are the targets of attack by those members who are opposed to the present Journal and desire return of the publication as it appeared prior to the trial period between October and January, that is. in the months of October, November and December, 1939. and before the permanent program or fait accompli, which has been going on since January 1940.

It is the duty of the editors to work unobtrusively —behind the lines—but sometimes, as in the present case, they must emerge from their shell of obscurity to defend the tasks entrusted to them and themselves, lest their silence be construed as admission of guilt.

To render this defense more effective and more personal, it is meet to use the first person (grammatically speaking) in the counter-argument.

Thanks to the 1939 Convention, the oft repeated pleas of the younger Verhovays for bi-monthly publication of the theretofore monthly English Edition was acknowledged and acted upon, and general provisions were made by the Convention to shape the program to be followed for the new bi-monthly Journal which, of course, would now appear twice a month instead of the former once monthly. Later the directors and supreme officers rounded these generalities into definite channels of application, with the express command, BE IT REMEMBERED, that the new Journal assume a more CULTURAL and ENLIGHTENING aspect. It was ordered that INANE and INSINUATING writings (obviously in reference to the gossip columns) alluding to individuals, parties or branches be ONCE and for ALL time stricken from the Journal. It was this fact of the NEGATIVE development of the gossip columns that prompted the directors to demand unmistakably standing adherence to strict propriety.

We should like to believe that the present misunderstanding and animosity on the part of some of the members and contributors (mostly ex-contributors) is due to a misconception of the facts and taking statements at face values without investigation—but—we are sorry to say, we have incontestable evidence that there are a few. members who concertedly or singly, or both, are spreading false statements among other members to the effect that we are attempting to drive out contributions front our members in favor of outside sources, this being don« to discredit us and because said broadcasters of such un« founded rumors can not see fit to give up their forme? “Arpad drank six beers” and “Sari has too much circumference in the girth” nonsencial and insulting remarks. The day of like expressions are GONE—gone FOREVER.

And it pains some because we have at times cut or abridged their contributions (but only when deemed advisable, for this we hate to do). It is not for the contributors to judge here. We feel that we are qualified and competent along these lines, and know when to exercise this right and when not to. Editors of professional pufeli-