What's against reducing the number of letters? Especially if all hopes of simple substitution have been abandoned?
Have you ever seen Roman numerals in a manuscript? Usually, the final "I" gets a swoop added to it. It's effectively a positional allograph. Why would one argue I'm favor of it being a separate numeral, just to increase the size of the set?
Have you ever seen Roman numerals in a manuscript? Usually, the final "I" gets a swoop added to it. It's effectively a positional allograph. Why would one argue I'm favor of it being a separate numeral, just to increase the size of the set?