Re: USAGE: Currencies and -s

Raymond Brown wrote:

> At 1:09 am -0500 30/8/00, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> >BP Jonsson wrote:
> [....]
> >>
> >> And why?  Because in each lg they got their own plural formation.  And
> >> besides there was once an English coin called "Crown".  Last but not least
> >> that's what the word means(*)
> >
> >Except that English speakers do not speak about "crowns" with reference
> >to currency unless they want to sound like an eighteenth century Enlightenment
> >philosopher, so we don't use that term.  :)
>
> On the contrary, we _do_.  When I travelling around central Europe this
> summer, the currencies of Slovakia and the Czech Republic were always
> referred to as 'Slovak crowns' and 'Czech crowns'.  I never once heard
> either the Czech or the Slovak words used in English.
Granted, that it is used like this in Europe.  It does not seem to be the usage
here.   Everytime I've been to a foreign exchange dealer here, or read about
foreign exchange rates, the foreign name has *always* been used, never the
English translation.

> And, hey - what's this with the 18th century?
I didn't say the coin was used exclusively in, or was abolished before the end
of, the 18th century.  What I said is that English speakers don't use the term
unless they want to sound archaic (for which I used the metaphor of the 18th
Century Enlightenment philosopher, the image of a pedant).  I did overgeneralize
my usage for all English speakers, and for that I apologize.  It does, however
sound far more archaic to Americans than it would to you, naturally, since the
US hasn't been part of the British Empire or the monetary system that went
along with it since... the 18th Century.

Naturally, I did not intend to give the impression that British usage, or
your usage, is archaic ipso facto like this -- far from it. For that I also apologize.

======================================
Tom Wier   |     "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
======================================