Homework help again!

[snookersfun]

Hebrew: achat, shteim, shalosh (ch-german ch)
Arabic:wahid, ithnen, thalathah (th-english th)

[Lindea]

Danish:

1 en (or et)
2 to
3 tre

[April madness]

Danish:

1 en (or et)
2 to
3 tre

too late!

just kidding

[Lindea]

Hadn't seen it

[berolina]

I can do it in Arabian too:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Russian:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Portuguese:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Latin:
I, II, III, IV or IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.

You're welcome!

priceless!

Italian: un due tre
Portuguese: um dois três [s sounds like German sch]
Spanish: un dos tres
French: un deux trois

easy

[The Statman]

I can do it in Arabian too:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Russian:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Portuguese:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
Latin:
I, II, III, IV or IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.

You're welcome!

Did you know the clock tower at Westminster (commonly but incorrectly known as Big Ben) is one of very, very few clocks with Roman numerals to have 4 represented as IV rather than IIII.

Almost every other clock uses IIII, although it is only on clocks that this is done!

[elvaago]

IIII is more correct, as IV represents the Roman god Jupiter, and was not allowed to be used for anything else.

Do tell, what /is/ the Big Ben? The clock itself?

[davis_greatest]

IIII is more correct, as IV represents the Roman god Jupiter, and was not allowed to be used for anything else.

Do tell, what /is/ the Big Ben? The clock itself?

Big Ben is the main bell inside.

[The Statman]

IIII is more correct, as IV represents the Roman god Jupiter, and was not allowed to be used for anything else.

But VIIII is never used for 9, etc.

The IV does seem more consistent witht the rest of the notations – XC rather than LXXXX for 90, CM rather than DCCCC for 900, IX for 9, MIX for 1009 rather than MVIIII etc.

[edinmis]

Not sure whether you need Chinese, but here are:

1: yi 一 (chinese)
2： er 二
3： san 三

[elvaago]

But VIIII is never used for 9, etc.

The IV does seem more consistent witht the rest of the notations – XC rather than LXXXX for 90, CM rather than DCCCC for 900, IX for 9, MIX for 1009 rather than MVIIII etc.

Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

IIII or IV?

The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the god Jove (and later YHWH). The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for "nine", but IIII for "four". Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses both IIII and IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for "five", IIX for "eight" or VV for "ten" have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number "18" was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number "19" was undeviginti or “one from twenty”. The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX - notably Admiralty Arch in London. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Library which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904.