Talk:Language and the euro/Archive 1

Plural of euros and cents: original policy discussion
The article should reflect the fact that BOTH plural forms (i.e, with and without -s) are used in practice in the only English-speaking country in the Eurozone, and that a sustainable case can be made on either side of the debate. Wikpedia articles are supposed to be written using a neutral point of view.


 * The euro is divided into 100 cent

I really don't like this. We should follow the English Style Guide of the European Commission Translation Service and use cents (and similarly euros).

See A fistful of euro or a fistful of euros? and section 20.7 of the linked English Style Guide

Incidentally, see Spelling of the words “euro” and “cent” in the official Community languages - to be used when drawing up Community Legislative acts for the plurals in other languages. Roybadami 16:13 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, I've decided to be bold and make the change., here and in Euro coins. If your inclined to disagree, please read the above references first. Roybadami 22:57 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

I've also edited the para on alternative terms; it seemed a little terse after the removal of the (presumed spurious?) Italian plural. I might have been inclined to add a note on Finnish plurals (see above reference), put I haven't a clue what a singular partitive form is. In any case, I've probably made this para overlong as it is. Roybadami

Plural of euros and cents: discussion about Italian
...terms exists in the various languages of the member states: for example in Italian the plural is euri.

This is false, italian doesn't modify foreign words when doing plurals and other "flessions", as stated by Accademia della Crusca (people that decide what is "correct" in italian, for short). http://www.istruzione.it/euro/web_istruzione/crusca.shtml as a referecne. Notice that in 1999 the accadia talked about "euri" but official, latest, statement is "euro" with no doubt.


 * But euro is not a foreign word... it's the name of the Italian currency. User:Marco_Neves

I have'nt changed the Euro page myself as I would not know what other example to put there, but I hope someone does it very soon...

--Lapo


 * Regardless of what the Academy has to say, I am curious as to whether most Italians say degli euri or degli euro.
 * 1 - we directly call them "dollars", it's easier and more concrete
 * 2 - we do hope we are soon coming back home, to stay long abroad it's too expensive for us...


 * After spending almost a year studying in Milan, I can without a doubt tell you that nobody uses euri. Euro as the plural is what is taught at the language courses and as well as used on the streets. --Mjaavatt


 * I added the thing on "euri" after reading about it in a British newspaper, which was reporting on the initial takeup of the Euro -- and how as well as being unifying, local colour remained nonetheless. (propaganda aimed at dragging recalcitrant Brits kicking and screaming into the 21st century... ;-) I doubt it's official, but it would be interesting to note nonetheless if it's a common usage -- Tarquin


 * I assume that the European Comission Translation Service must have an Italian Style Guide (though I couldn't immediately find it on their web site). Someone who reads Italian (and can find it!) might wish to see what they say about the plural of Euro. (See my comments and links below; the Translation Service mandates the English use of euros and cents despite the fact that EU regulations require an invariant plural in legislative documents.) If normal Italian usage differs from that specified for legislation, I imagine that the Style Guide might say something about it. Roybadami 01:08 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

Bulgairan slang usage
I thought about adding about the jocular usage евраки (to make it sound Greek), but I don't know if it's prevalent enough. If others have encountered it, do tell.

Plural of euros and cents: discussion revisited
Roybadami's edit of "cent" to "cents" was changed by an anonymous poster to "cent(s)". Obviously I find this offensive (and am famous for doing so), so I have changed it back. I have also (as I promised some time ago) revised the section on the plural rather extensively. I can supply links to the original legislation which caused this fiasco if anyone wants it in the article. I realize that not everything that I wrote might be considered perfectly NPOV, but I assure you all (having done a lot of research on this topic that the story as given is true. I welcome edits to make the text more neutral but I would strongly urge co-editors of this article not to allow a wholesale replacement which implies that the s-less plurals are some sort of natural development and that all is right with it.

Interestingly, Dell computers was broadcasting its adverts in Ireland on Sky with the "legislative plurals" but they have recently ceased to do this and are using now the natural plurals.

Sometimes I think the only hope for Ireland is that the UK will join the EMU since the British public would not stand the abuse of the English language as much of the Irish public seems to have. ("Ten euro and fifty cent" indeed. It's appalling. It's got to be "ten euros and fifty cents".) Evertype 21:02, 2004-07-15 (UTC)


 * HAH! As if here in Ireland we give two hoots about abusing the English language! It is our solemn duty to ensure Hiberno-English becomes entirely unintelligable to those across the water :o) (You never know, it might be true of Kerry!) Seriously though, the reason there's not as much fuss here about using "10 euro" rather than "10 euros" is that the Irish language uses the singular form of the noun when counting. Its a habit that has continued in a few situations, such as money. To hear people talk of "10 pound" was not uncommon. I would say that it would be unusual for one to hear someone speak of "10 cent" rather than "10 cents". Although the example you give is one which would be common - using "cent" in conjunction with "euro". It's all a bit complicated. Speaking in the general sense one speaks of "euro", but usually "cents". Note that all I am discussing is the used forms in Ireland - irrespective of "official" forms. Zoney 21:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With respect, Zoney, the "reason" that "10 euro" doesn't jar some Irish ears has nothing to do with Irish plural formation. It has to do with people hearing it every day on TV. I remember very clearly, though many seem to forget: everyone was taken aback by the "novel" plural and the shame of it is that so many people thought they were being good little Europeans by complying, oblivious to the fact that euros is the official plural in French, Spanish, and Portuguese. You are right: it is a bit complicated. It needn't have been, but until we get another government which can instruct RTÉ to stop this silliness with the "official" form, we will continue to have a mix of "legislative" and "natural" plurals in Ireland. Evertype 21:32, 2004-07-15 (UTC)

Zoney, I've just looked at your edits, and I'm sorry, but they are factually incorrect. S-less plurals of the specific words "euro" and "cent" have no historical justification, as I have said, and the parallel of Irish singulars in counting does not have anything to do with why the s-less plurals are reinforced. (Most people don't know enough Irish to apply such a rule, and it is certainly not productive. The reason the s-less plurals are current is as I have described it. In addition, my statement that people have become accustomed to what they hear on TV is also correct: I have been observing this situation closely from the beginning. It is simply not the case that people are saying "ten euro and fifty cent" in some sort of Hiberno-English protest. If McCreavy had never introduced these fake plurals into Ireland, no one would have ever, ever changed the plurals by deleting the s. Finally, the word cent pronounced [sent] is used in Irish, and ceint is ignored. I'm sorry, but I'll have to revert everything but your useful "perhaps". Please don't take offence. Evertype 21:45, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)


 * I can tell you now, that is not the situation around my area. "the EU has no business changing the natural plurals of English" HAH, I can't imagine anyone around here saying such a thing. People here feel no loyalty to the English language! And yes, I entirely approve of using the EU-derived form to set Ireland apart as a more European country than the UK! I am pretty sure the legislative form will win over, one hears those much more often as time goes on. We'll also hopefully see our country further influenced by the rest of Europe - it's already meant decent coffee, and food that is actually interesting! And LIDL, is there anything they don't sell? And at prices which aren't the usual insane Irish ones! Don't forget, there are multiple Irelands. There's Dublin, which is practically Britain, it's probably where the 35% of Irish who didn't say the EU is a good thing live. There's the West, there's the People's Republic of Cork, there's Kerry, there's the Border counties, there's the Midlands, the Southeast, the Midwest. Finally, it is true to say that the form "10 pound" was used previously in Ireland, and yes, this was a feature of Hiberno-English influenced by the Irish language. Zoney 21:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. "10 pound" was (and is) current in British English, and it is incorrect to say that the reason 10 pound was said here is because of Irish (trí phunt, deich bpunt, remember). Further, the "official" form and the form broadcast was "10 pounds". The linguistic and sociolinguistic facts are as I have presented them. When the unnatural s-less plural came in, people everywhere noticed it, because everyone speaks English here, and everyone normally forms the plural in -s. The s-less plurals of euro and cent are nothing more than McCreavy and his cronies failing to understand the point of the original EU legislation, and then lacking the wit to revert to speaking normal English. Even when it was pointed out to them. The rest of the English-speaking world will never say "10 euro and 50 cent" and it is absurd for anyone in Ireland to do so. It is nothing to be proud of. It is a cock-up. Evertype 22:19, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)


 * I contest that my edits are factually incorrect (obviously). Why anyone would use cent rather than ceint in Irish is beyond me! ("euro" is different - there isn't an "official" invented word, because the government couldn't care less about looking after and furthering the Irish language) Also, people do currently use all forms "euro", "euros", "cent" and "cents", although the "s" forms are indeed successfully being stamped out by the great efforts of the government and broadcasters. Zoney 21:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Zoney, I can tell you, absurd as it seems, in Irish "they" decided to use euro and cent as in English. That's official. that's what Rannóg an Aistriúcháin does. It's wrong, of course. Just as the s-less plurals in English are wrong. I assure you the facts are as I have presented them.

The changes you have just made, introducing Euroskeptics, are inappropriate and unsubstantiated. People who object to the s-less plurals object because they are unnatural, and the talk when those plurals were introduced was about the EU having no business making such changes, and it's not true to say that it was Euroskepticism that was the cause of this.. Kevin Myers wrote an article about it. PLEASE read the articles on my web site which are linked at the bottom of the euro article BEFORE making further unsubstantiated changes.

(A variety has sprung up is the correct grammar. The plural of the urban legends does not govern the verb.) Evertype 22:19, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)


 * I added the Euroskeptics bit, as the whole "resent the EU changing English" sounds ludicrously Euroskeptic - I take exception to the implication that "most" (as the text stated before my edit) Irish people subscribe to that view. Zoney 11:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion since the beginning. I observed the discussion carefully. I participated in public debate on the topic. I heard people dismiss both the Commission and the Minister for Finance as having the right to dictate anything about English grammar. But this is exactly what happened. McCreavy let RTÉ know that we were supposed to use the s-less plurals. "Says who? The Commission?" (In fact the Commission did not say it; the Irish government misinterpreted and misapplied a Regulation about the name of the currency.) But it's not "ludicrously Euroskeptic"; after all, the euro itself was being introduced by the EU, as was the word euro (which they invented) and the "grammar" that came along with it. Evertype 15:38, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)


 * Why is the Irish theory (and I admit it is that) necessarily incorrect? Yes there is mutations of the noun in counting, but the singular noun form is still used. The source of the theory is numerous Irish classes at all levels from Primary to Uni level. It's no more an invalid theory than the "we've all been subjected to brainwashing" one! As regards your "absurd" comment - I still don't follow. Why does Ireland need to use "correct" English? It's not our native tongue. Bá cheart duinn Gaeilge a úsaid! Zoney 11:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your theory that Irish-language plural formation is the reason people in Ireland say "five euro and fifty cent" is simply not true to the facts. You may not remember the introduction of the word euro and the introduction of its "novel" plural, but I certainly do. I knew people working at the Euro Changeover Board. Your theory would be believable only if the use of s-less plurals in Hiberno-English was a productive linguistic feature. It is not. The s-less plurals were introduced by bureaucrats; it was an error; the professional translators at the Commission itself deplore the error and earnestly hope that the natural plurals in -s will become the norm in Ireland one day. My "theory" is not that the Irish people have been "brainwashed". My observation is that constant television broadcasting has inured people to the unnatural grammar of "five euro and fifty cent". I also observe that many people still resist this and retain natural grammar. For my part, I can't think of any reason not to say "five euros and fifty cents".

"Why does Ireland need to use "correct" English?" you ask. Don't be ridiculous. "It's not our native tongue." That's untrue. Most people in Ireland are native speakers of English. "Ba [sic] cheart dúinn [sic] Gaeilge a úsáid [sic]" – Well, I believe the same. We should use good natural grammar in both English and in Irish when we speak of our currency: ''One euro, two euros. One cent, two cents. An t-eoró. Luach an eoró. Na heorónna. Cruth na n-eorónna. Eoró amháin. Trí eoró. Seacht n-eoró. Ceint amháin. Trí cheint. Seacht gceint. But official policy in Ireland is to say: One euro, two euro. One cent, two cent. An euro. Luach an euro. Na euro. Cruth na euro. Euro amháin. Trí euro. Seacht euro. Cent amháin. Trí cent. Seacht cent.'' I don't think that either abuse, of English, or of Irish, is acceptable. Evertype 15:38, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current situation breaks set rules for both languages. But I say that the article ignores the reality that this has become accepted. It is written in a tone as to try and emphasise that "natural plurals" should be used. It suggests the Irish are stupid brainwashed manipulated individuals, rather than the easy-going "who cares?" people we are. I mean, if there's one thing that most Irish people pay less attention to than the English language, it's the Irish language. Zoney 00:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aris, most of your edits are pretty good, but I think that you misunderstood what I meant by "natural". Moose and sheep notwithstanding, the stripping of the -s from cents is certainly unprecedented, and considering pesos there is no "naturalness" to the plural euro. I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I'll try to revisit this after a few days. I think that a mention of the urban legends is warranted. Ireland is in an unhappy situation because of the lack of language-planning that went into this, and Wikipedia should tell all the facts. Evertype 20:35, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)


 * I feel that this is an article about the Euro. It's perhaps okay to have a section about how the word is used throughout the Union, but what doesn't seem to me very okay is to devote a dozen paragraphs on how Ireland (and Ireland alone) uses the plural form of the word. It's not the place for it I feel.
 * I do urge you, if you like, to create a new article about the "Linguistic Issue Concerning the Plural Form of Euro in Ireland" or something like that, and then we can link to it. I mean it. But do you really feel that such a debate mentioning *all* the facts should be placed in the main article concerning the currency? Before my edits, Ireland had more paragraphs devoted in it in this section that all the other countries combined. That's... improper, I feel. There's a difference between an english article on the Euro, and a article about Euro's English usage. The section still feels to me a bit inbalanced towards focusing only the English word, Ireland in especial, but I supposed that can't be helped if Ireland's the only country that has caused such controversy.
 * Also, concerning the "urban legends" -- it feels very dismissive and POV to call them that. Call them *theories* if you must call them anything. I'll take a glance to see myself if I can find a non-intrusive and neutral way of mentioning them, without enlarging the text on Ireland too much.
 * Thanks for the comment -- and I'm glad you liked most of my edits.
 * Aris Katsaris 01:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The recent anonymous edit which added the suggestion that Irish people become used to the "s"-less plural because of what they see on the banknotes and coins is one of the urban legends that grew up because people needed to explain why non-standard plurals were "right". In other countries where regular plurals are used the people are not tricked into using non-standard grammar because of what is written on the notes. I think the new clause should be deleted as it is not true to the facts. Evertype 19:31, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)


 * It does sound like an urban legend. However, it's no more inaccurate than the "Many people in Ireland strongly prefer the natural plurals" - the positioning of this first, and the tone of the bit describing proponants of the s-less plural (essentially suggesting brainwashing)... are absolute rubbish. Mostly people have no objection to the s-less plural - it is becoming ubiqitous. "Euro" was not previously an English word, the currency is a new concept, and the unusual plural is part and parcel of it for most people. Basically - "who gives a crap?" is the attitude of the average Irish person.
 * Personally - I couldn't be arsed getting involved in an edit war - but please note that I consider the entire section and article biased, and ignoring the defacto reality (most Irish people use s-less plural - and it is taking prominence).
 * Zoney 00:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, why don't you let Google decide? That means to let the majority decide like it is common in democray. So please just type in "1000 Euros" and again "1000 Euro". You will see it is much more common in any language nowadays to say "Euro".

Plural of euros and cents: discussion resumed
Just to give my point of view on the issue. I am a 19-year-old student living in Limerick, and the whole Euro<->Euros thing appears to be a lot different to younder members of the population. Most people that I know who are my age and younger say "euro" as the plural, and most also say "cent" (though probably slightly less than "euro"). Very few - especially those younger than me - appear to use the -s plurals. This is probably due to our greater influence from TV and radio. I've got too used to not using the -s plurals - the -s plurals just felt wrong to me after actually starting using the currency, and I often get highly annoyed by (mostly UK-originated) ads and websites and whatnot that use the -s plurals, and often complained too as it just doesn't seem formally accepted here. Though it appears less of a problem now, especially in the case of advertisements on TV and radio - B&Q stopped saying "euros" on their ads; and last year Sky kinda stopped, then started again... then stopped; Dell originally said "euro", but then twice went to "euros" when they had British voice-overs; and pretty much every indiginous advertisement (except for a few often poorly-produced ads) still continues to use "euro" and "cent" on TV, radio and wherever else.

I think it's a bit different with the older generation of people here though - most seem to be less welcoming to this irregularity in English. I know some people who change between "euro" and "euros" on a regular basis - even in the same sentences - and there's probably a lot more people older than 25 than under who tend to use the -s plurals more often. And then there's the elderly, who'll probably never get used to it - my grandad's still saying "pounds" most the time!

After reading this and other similar articles, I'm not sure which way is "correct", and am quite annoyed at the whole situation. But I really don't see people who don't use the -s plurals, especially younger people, changing to the -s plurals any time soon unless the media industry here do too and some sort of standard is set. --Zilog Jones 23:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Zilog, I sympathize with you. Many young people in Ireland have learned the unnatural plurals from radio and television; if you hear something often enough it starts to sound natural. But it's the media which is in error in spreading this distortion of natural English grammar. And make no mistake: The rest of the English-speaking world says euros and cents and that's never going to change. Please see the new section I added today at the end of this page for more information. Evertype 15:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I really think this discussion is a non-sense. The euro is used as national currency by people in different countries and each one has to feel it as his/her own currency, therefore in concordance with the national language. If in some languages the obvious plural of euro is "euro", "euroty" or "eurolia" (of course i'm playing a little) this should be respected. In my language (portuguese) the plural of euro is "euros", because "euro" would be the only plural without an "s" termination. By the same reason we would not accept the word "cent" because it end with a "t".Japf1 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At this page the general public can download several European Central Bank brochures regarding the Euro. These brochures are unanimous that the plural of "cent" is "cent", but give no indication of the plural of "euro". 83.71.59.129 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Plural of euros and cents: original discussion about Irish
I view [the suggestion that eura was to be used in Irish] as pretty spurious. I've never heard of it before, always using euro as the plural in Irish. In any case, the singular form of words are used when counting in Irish, hence the reason why so many Irish used 'five pound', etc. in English. Similarly talking about five euro isn't so odd either.

Can someone explain what hat 'eura' was pulled out of! Go raibh maith agat!

I removed the rather nasty piece about European Commission having no right to dictate language etc. (yes, the Eurocrats in Brussels are out to make all our lives a misery!)

Zoney 12:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not eura; the first name proposed (by the Coiste Téarmaíochta) was a short truncation of Eoraip, namely eora. The term eoró seems to be more current among those who don't use the English term as a foreign borrowing. This isn't a trivial matter; euro in Irish has no gender and doesn't behave according to the normal grammar. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the genitive (more frequent than the nominative) is "an euro" which means that in Irish it would be a masculine noun an t-eoró, luach an eoró, na heorónna, luach na n-eorónna (and not an eoró, luach na heoró, na heorónna, luach na n-eorónna).


 * Note that the spelling euro isn't possible under the rules of normal Irish orthography: eu doesn't occur (compare séú 'sixth'). Indeed, though the form euro could occur in older Irish orthography, it would be spelt éaró today (compare reul > réal 'sixpence').


 * I see that my site has been linked at the end of this article. Thanks. At some stage soon I shall try to tackle the "pluralisation" section, which isn't really very accurate as it stands. Evertype 19:50, 2004 May 31 (UTC)


 * Go raibh maith agat, I wasn't aware of these issues. Unfortunately, the above useful explanation is probably to much detail to go into in the main Euro article. Perhaps a new sub-article euro and language problems can be started, as I am sure there as issues with use of terms for euro in many of the other languages (not least English of course, Euro vs. Euros). I might bite the bullet here if I've time.


 * B.T.W. You don't happen to know what's the government's position on Euro and Irish? (Falls off chair laughing hysterically)


 * An bhfuil aon rud scríofa agat sa chiclipéid Gaeilge - Vicipéid, tá cabhair á theastáil againn.


 * Zoney 20:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Plural of euros and cents: discussion about Greek
I very much doubt the comment about the plural "euro" form being similar to the Greek word for urine. Urine in Greek is 'OU-ra', whereas Euro is 'Ev-RO' (stressed syllable in capitals). Even if it were made into a normal Greek plural 'Ev-RA' it would still sound nothing like the word for urine. Indeed, the English words 'euro' and 'urine' are more similar than their Greek counterparts. I live in Greece and I never heard anyone comment on the connection. Could this be an urban legend?


 * Thanks for the information. I'll remove it (it is already flagged as apocryphal, but why give a silly apocryphal explanation space at all?) But also the alternative explanation, that "each language has a different method of forming plurals. To avoid the need to settle on one, they kept it euro for plural" is non-sensical given that as stated soon after, the plurals do differ between languages so they would not need to settle on one pluralisation anyway.  Best to remove this speculation and stick to the facts.  While I'm at it I'll turn "Official practice" into a useful external link.


 * I recall a major Swedish newspaper having an article on the Euro-Eura (i.e. urine) issue, at the time the name 'Euro' was first made public. --Soman (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of English section

 * This has the effect of reinforcing the s-less plurals, though many advertisers (particularly those in the United Kingdom) prefer the 'natural' plurals in -s, euros and cents''


 * While many people in Ireland strongly prefer the natural plurals – and at the time the s-less plurals were introduced, some complained that the EU had no business changing English grammar – other people have become accustomed to what they hear on daily television and radio, and to the s-less plurals which they see written on the notes and coins. While usage in Ireland is disputed, common usage in the UK prefers euros and cents as the plural forms. Broadcasts of currency exchange rates outside of the European Union tend to use the -s plural; with NPR in the United States and the CBC in Canada being two examples.

Some of my changes to the wording of this section were reverted. The wording above is not NPOV: Iota 17:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The wording above says that some strongly prefer the 'natural' plurals while simply stating that the 'legistlative' plurals are used merely because people are 'accustomed' to them. Some also 'strongly' prefer the legislative plurals (but only a minority have strong feelings either way).
 * The statement that "some complained that the EU had no business changing English grammar" implicitly suggests that this contention was correct. I changed the wording to "some complained that the EU was attempting to change English grammar" which conveys the same meaning while making clear that what is purported is claim rather than fact.
 * The term "-s plurals" is preferable to "natural plurals" because it is only opponents of the -s plurals that claim they are unnatural.
 * What you wrote isn't NPOV either.
 * I simply don't believe it's the case that anyone on Ireland strongly prefers the legislative plurals. And you may not have been paying attention when this disaster of language-planning occurred, but I was. People were taken aback by the s-less plurals. People talked about it in pubs. It's only because the media picked it up off McCreavy that people did get accustomed to it.
 * You can't say that "some complained that the EU was attempting to change English grammar". The legislative plural DOES change English grammar, and the whole thing was a cock-up on the part of McCreavy's department. In Spanish and French and Portuguese the "normal" plural euros is used, because they were paying attention to their own languages. McCreavy misunderstook the Council Directive (which was about the name of the currency and the text on the banknotes, not about regular grammar), and RTÉ took it up, and everyone in Ireland had to "learn" the "new" unnatural plural.
 * It is not incorrect to refer to "natural plurals". 95% of English words form their plurals in -s. The plural of cent has always been cents, until a European Council committee with neither linguistic knowlege nor authority was taken to have decreed it. Indeed, the plural of the name of the kangaroo euro has also always been euros. The plural of peso is pesos. The plural of biro is biros. There is nothing "natural" about the s-less plurals, and, indeed, the Translation Section of the Commission specifically states that in all but legislative texts, in all texts directed at the general public, the natural plurals should be used. That means plurals in -s, and it means the Wikipedia. Evertype 22:35, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

The current status of the text is quite redundant and POV. In view of the various other currencies and other measure words with s-less plurals, it is by no means clear that the "natural" plural of euro would be euros. My attempt to straighten this out was bluntly reverted by user Evertype. What does he propose to do to improve the text? &minus;Woodstone 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I also tried to improve the text and make the text more factually based rather than blatant POV, however, once again the changes were reverted by Everytype to peddle his own agenda. This POV pushing has to stop. I'm sticking a disputed tag and dubious tags. See below. Jamesnp 22:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing in the English Section
I have added a disputed box and dubious markers for the 'facts' that I have issue with. It seems the POV pushing is not new on this article and people who try to rectify the section are systematically rebuffed. Certainly in my opinion the current section (as 'rectified' by Everytype) does not reflect the truth on the ground in Ireland. Can we have some debate on this and get some citations! Jamesnp 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my local pub in rural Mayo, ordinary people say "euros". Adverts on Sky from the UK say "euros". "Many" of them, in fact. All throughout the English-speaking world except where RTÉ broadcasts the s-less plurals that the Translation Section of the EU opposes, people say "euros" and even in Ireland where RTÉ does broadcast, still MANY people say "euros". I have studied this whole issue from the beginning. I have cited chapter and verse by number from legislation and Directive. That, JamesNP, is "truth". The article has been fairly balanced, and I look in in order to keep it so. (1) How would you like to "cite" the fact that "many" advertisers use the natural plurals in -s? I notice them frequently. I listen for it. I don't think there is anything to "cite". (2) The s-less plural was not a "natural" borrowing, as the article says (I did not write that part but I agree with it). A "natural borrowing" is where you take a word without a plural and keep it pluralless when you borrow it. "Euro" isn't like that. If it were, you'd never here "euros" anywhere -- yet you do. (The wallabies called euro pluralize as euros of course. And the Translation Section of the EU itself wants everyone to use "euros" except in Legislation. McCreevy's Finance Department dropped the ball on this. These are facts. -- Evertype·✆ 22:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And before you retort, please do read the chapter and verse here. Ta. -- Evertype·✆ 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I already have read the entire discussion. There's no point getting involved with these things if you don't. – My issues arise with the passage from the article because after I read it I was left with the impression that outside of the world of RTÉ, the S-less plural was not and is not used. This is simply not the case. I for one, as a child doing junior cert business, remember a 'euro class fact pack' being delivered around the schools by the ECBI. In this fact pack there was a section called Euro or Euros?, which went on to explain why there was no plural – I remember this because at the time saying something like 3 euro sounded strange to me, but the reverse is the case now for myself, and anyone that says euro as the plural. Much of the ECBI literature tackled the plural issue straight on (not the handbook, though euros are never mentioned). Attributing the current widespread use of the s-less plural solely to RTÉ is nonsense. Regardless, whatever the initial reasons for the uptake of the s-less plural, it is here now and here to stay and this section should reflect how widespread usage is. Regarding the advertising, it's very hard to cite sources admittedly, however, I decided to take survey of sorts this evening. I took 5 sets of commercial breaks one from each Irish channel, Of the pool, only 2 mentioned currency... 1) Tesco Computers for Schools (one for every 10 euro spent) 2) Meteor (5 cent calls). I will endeavour to expand this test over the weekend and hopefully put this to rest. As an aside, I also didn't hear a single person say euros on Irish TV this evening, though I did hear it on "A Place in the Sun" on Channel 4. Jamesnp 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * James, I'm travelling now and can't do too much editing. RTÉ *should* be doing what the Translation Section of the EC says, which is to use real language for real people. The ECBI didn't understand the legislation either (I knew people on the ECBI. They promised me that the s-less plural would be "allowed"). Other countries like Spain and Portugal and France which have plurals in -s use them regularly. Ireland screwed up. I will mention two things though, before I ahve to dash. Your (1) Tesco "one for every ten euro spent" is an example of the s-less plural. Compare "one for every ten dollars spent". Your (2) however is an error on your part. "Meteor have five-cent calls" is correct: in the adjectival position the word is not plural. Compare "a five-cent cigar". (The hyphen should be used to show the adjectival relationship in this construction.) The plural of "cent" has been "cents" for a very long time indeed, and it was not within the competence of the Commission to change that. There's no justification for the s-less plural of "euro" given "peso, pesos" either. The story is as I have told it: The Irish Dept of Finance misunderstood the intent of the early Directive, and if they had got it right (or taken responsibility when it was pointed out to them) we would not have two competing plurals for this word in Ireland (as they do not in Spain, Portugal, and France, or indeed in the rest of the English-speaking world). This is why the Wikipedia policy in articles about the euro is to use the regular plurals in -s, too. By the way, do you have Sky? You also need to look at adverts not for the Irish market. Please don't edit the article precipitously. I will revert. ("Three euro" sounded strange to you as a child because it WAS strange. It isn't the natural plural, and this whole thing was a huge FF cock-up.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An aside. RTÉ did what it thought the Government wanted. As did the ECBI. It was nevertheless a disaster in language-planning, because it wasn't what was supposed to be done. I blame RTÉ for spreading the meme, since that is what they do. OK? :-) (I do have hope a new Government will sort this out.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added to this section before but on all occasions these entries have been deleted, presumably by Evertype. Regardless, I feel that it is important to have an unbiased resource in Wikipedia and feel that it is incredibly self-indulgant for the afore mentioned to continually edit the article pushing his own POW. May i point to a recent article I have found on the website of the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation which uses the word euro without the s to denote the plural of the currency. Please let this herald a new dawn in this discussion that allows for balamnnced opinion and fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7221807.stm Donaghkebab (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)donaghkebab 01/02/2008


 * Or we could pay attention to the primary source and not some misinformed journalist:

However, the Directorate General for Translation recomends that in English language texts the natural plurals 'euros' and 'cents' should be used in non-legal documents intended for the general public.
 * specifically

20.7 The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital. ''The Interinstitutional Style Guide (section 7.3.1) states that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’.  In documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely, make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount. ''
 * and wonder who is doing the POV pushing. --Red King (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Those responsible for English in Brussels prefer the natural plurals, and understand that the "legislative plurals" were pretty much an accident. The Irish government (in the person of Charlie McCreevy, to whom this problem was pointed out) did not take it on board, and RTÉ did what they thought the government wanted them to do "for consistency" as it says in one of the articles on my website. (It's been a while since I've re-read those.) The only reason the "legislative plurals" have currency in Ireland is because RTÉ broadcasts them, and even then many people, everywhere, use the natural plurals simply because the are what comes naturally. (No, nobody's going to do a census of this, and we are stuck with "many" on both sides.) For my part I will continue to defend this position, which is accurate and observable. -- Evertype·✆ 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the French language style guide but I observe that the Commission consistently applies exactly the same rule (natural plurals in non-legistlative instances) in French too. This is a piece of French text on a very important subject (Proposition de règlement du Conseil relatif à la protection de l'euro contre le faux monnayage Proposal for a Council regulation concerning the protection of the euro against forgery).  The first sentence says: Dans sa recommandation du 7 juillet 1998 concernant l'adoption de certaines mesures visant à renforcer la protection juridique des billets et des pièces en euro s [1], la Banque centrale européenne a suggéré de mettre en place une législation communautaire pour assurer la protection juridique de l'euro. (In its recommendation of 7 July 1998 concerning the adoption of certain measures to enhance the legal protection of notes and coins in euro s [1], the European Central Bank has suggested that community legistlation be put in place to ensure the legal protection of the euro). --Red King (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording of Latvian section
is POV because albeit correct regarding the official stance of Academy of Science does not say anything about de facto usage of euro by media and financial institutions in Latvia. There are some who use eira for above mentioned reasons, however, majority chooses to say and write eiro including Latvijas Banka, the central financial institution. Lonehermit 01:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, how the s-less plural arose (Warning! Facts follow here!)
Directive (EC) No. 1103/97 of 1997-06-17 from the European Council states: Whereas … the European Council furthermore considered that the name of the single currency must be the same in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets.… This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. The intent of this Directive is, obviously, not to change the natural grammatical formation of plurals in any European language. The intent of the Directive is twofold: (1) to prevent an EMU country from calling the currency something else (like the ducat or the pound or the Mark or the dollar, and (2) to ensure that the banknotes were not cluttered up with a string of plurals and other forms (EURO EUROA EORÓNNA EUROT EUROS EIROI EURO'S EURI EVRI etc.). The only reasons the s-less plurals are found in the English of Ireland is that (1) the Commission misunderstood its own Directive and started using the invariant plurals in legislation (the silly rule that legislation continues to use these false plurals is to avoid problems in translation; a poor excuse, but there you are) and (2) the Irish Minister for Finance misunderstood the intent of the Directive and started speaking ungrammatically; the Irish Euro Changeover Board and the broadcast media picked it up, like parrots, and have broadcast it because they mistakenly believe that good little Europeans are supposed to form their plurals according to a European Council Directive. This is not the case; our co-pluralizers in Spain, France, and Portugal wisely rejected the abandonment of the s-less plural and they all happily say euros, euros, euros just like we would, had the Minister for Finance not cocked up. Make no mistake: the s-less plurals are supposed to be used only in legislation now; the European Commission itself recommends the natural plurals in all other contexts. The Irish media are doing the wrong thing. Want more proof? Klaus Regling, Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission said to me in a letter dated 2002-04-12: ''EU legislation is drafted and published by the Council in all linguistic versions. You rightly state in your letter that in EU legislation, the plurals of both "euro" and "cent" are written without an "s" in English, but that the Secretariat General of the Commission has issued a guideline recommending its translators to use the plural with "s" for both terms in documents other than legal texts.'' More? Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament, said to me in a letter dated 2002-05-30: ''I thank you for your letter of 22 March 2002 concerning the plural form of the Euro. I agree with you that the natural plural of euro and cent in English would be euros and cents and that the legislative plurals without the "s" sound unusual to English speakers. Your analysis of the current position is well-put and makes clear that no one is (or, indeed, could be) obliged to use a particular form in other contexts. Your campaign therefore provides a timely reminder that the natural plural forms are in no sense illegal and may be freely used for all other purposes.'' Evertype 14:53, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that while it may be correct to say that the EU didn't want to clutter the banknotes and that is the reason why there is no s on the banknotes. It is not the reason behind the official spelling of the words euro and cent in the plural and singular, as used in official documents such as EU legislation.  The document that specifies the english plural spelling without the s also specifices it with an s in other languages such as French, Spanish and Portugese.  There was no attempt at all to make the spelling of the plurals the same in these languages.  The |document is available in pdf on http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/faqs/faqs_13_en.htm  If anything, it may have been more of an attempt at standarization in pronunciation since the final s in french is not pronounced. Parmaestro 18:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The documents you refer to were made subsequent to the screw-up that "fixed" the English plurals as s-less for legislation. The whole thing has been a badly botched set of mistakes that could have been avoided if any bit of language planning (or simple wit) had been applied. France, Spain, Portugal, Finland, and Greece all managed to insist that their languages be respected ("we don't care what's on the banknotes, but in documentation we will use natural grammar"); the Irish Minister for Finance dropped the ball and then refused to clean up the mess. Evertype 14:43, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)


 * And now, over 3 years later, broadcasters, the media in general, and even teachers in Ireland still believe "euro" and "cent" are the correct plurals, and still no one's doing anything about the issue. My biggest concern is the teachers though - I am in the belief that primary school teachers generally believe this, but I don't know what sort of guidelines they are given about the problem, if any. I don't really know a lot younger kids, but all my younger cousins seem to strictly use the non-s plurals so I can only assume that's what they are taught. I was in 5th year by 2002 so we weren't really taught much about the basics of English, and since many of my school books were printed before the changeover they're probably not a good example and varied between the "s" plurals and the non-s plurals probably more out of lack of use of the words than anything else. --Zilog Jones 18:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This hideous mess is probably the reason I try and avoid using the words alltogether. I still say "fiver" and "tenner", and "grand" for thousands, and "quid" - or to be more annoying - "squids" --Zilog Jones 18:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Existing currencies with s-less plurals
The reason I listed the yen, rand, baht and now also the won as existing currencies with s-less plurals was not to suggest that these currencies were the reason for the s-less plural on the euro. Nor was I citing these currencies to prove that an s-less plural on the euro is acceptable. The reason I added the statement was merely to demonstrate that, contrary to popular perception, s-less plurals on currencies were in fact not a new concept in English grammar. I believe this fact is extremely relevant in the context of s-less plurals being used on a new currency, particularly when as already mentioned in the article, some people believed that the EU was attempting to change English grammar. I agree it is a mess that the EU advocates an s-less plural in official EU documents and an s-plural in everyday use. However, it is important to allow balanced arguments to be presented on Wikipedia and not to delete or rewrite valid factual comments that do not happen to support one's own opinions or preferences. The article should predominantly contain balanced facts rather than pushing individual contributors' opinions. On a topic which clearly has conflicting opinions, it should be up to readers to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented. If you feel strongly about something, then please use the discussion page rather than sabotaging other people's well intended contributions.

I think the remark about the peso and escudo is interesting, i.e. the ending of a currency in the singular influencing the plural formation, and the expectation of consistency in this respect. However, plural formation on currency names in English is not always dependent on their endings in the singular, since "pound" and "colón" have an s-plural but "rand" and "won" have an s-less plural. Given this precedence of inconsistency, I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions from the peso and escudo example. I think all we can state is that s-less plurals were not a new concept in English grammar and cite the best known existing examples. I don't think it adds much value to speculate in the article on whether these examples may or may not have influenced the EU's decision to use an s-less plural on the euro, unless that speculation is supported by hard facts. Nfh 19:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, the reason I moved your references to yen, baht, and rand (and did not delete them) was that it is relevant to the discussion. But the place in the article where you'd put it was at the discussion of the genesis of the practice, when the mention of these anomolous plurals had never been suggested. When people were complaining about the "novel" grammar, they were, really, not thinking about "sheep" or "yen" or "baht" (anomolous plurals, whether or not pre-existing an s-less plural of euro). Reference to those came later, and reference to them in the article should come later. I don't believe I "sabotaged" your well-intended contribution. I moved the relevant material to a different place in the article, and tried to expand on that. I've reverted and added some more text; shall we edit the new paragraph and move on? Evertype 23:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Michael, you first deleted my contribution. Then when I reinserted it in a more appropriate place, you rewrote it and moved it, changing it from a simple statement of fact to your own statement of opinion. It therefore no longer conveyed the meaning that I intended, which was to counter-balance the statement that "at least some complained that the EU ought not attempt to change English grammar", as those people did not consider the precedent that other currencies (as you point out) already had anomolous plurals. That is why the statement belongs where I inserted it. For this and the reasons I gave above, I've reinserted my statement and removed the four examples from your paragraph to avoid repetition. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. By the way, I prefer your expression "anomolous plurals" to s-less plurals. Is there any technical reason why we shouldn't use this term throughout the article? Nfh 07:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, I remain opposed to your edit as it stands. People originally expected euros and complained that euro was a change in grammar; this does not suggest that they thought that anomalous plurals do not occur (sheep, children, feet are there beside yen and baht (how DO you know that people don't say "10 bahts"?). So your introduction of this material is simply in the wrong place. People felt that the EU was changing grammar; sheep and yen were only brought up later. Therefore I believe this topic is better addressed elsewhere in the article. To answer your other question, "anomalous plurals" is too general for this article, and we should keep s-less. Evertype 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Michael, I still don't agree. The claim that the EU was attempting to change English grammar was a false perception that the EU was going against the existing rules of the language rather than changing the plural formation of just one word. I therefore think it is extremely relevant to mention that several existing currencies had s-less plurals and the appropriate position for this comment is immediately after the comment about the EU changing English grammar. I am inserting my contribution again and I would be grateful if you could leave this comment alone, as your replacement comment in a different place does not convey the same meaning. In return, I will leave alone your comment about the peso and escudo, which I do not agree with for the reasons I gave above. When contributing to Wikipedia, sometimes you have to compromise and allow others to have their say, particularly if they are writing fact rather than opinion. Much of what you have written is opinion rather than hard fact, and I am not deleting or amending that, despite Wikipedia not being intended as a forum to push one's own opinions. Please compromise and let us both respect each other's contributions. On the subject of the baht, whilst I'm sure you agree the official plural is "baht", you only have to do a quick search on Google for "100 baht" and "100 bahts" or any other number, and you will find roughly ten times as many s-less plural results than s-plural results. This would suggest that the official plural is written (and probably also spoken) in common usage. The result of the same test for the euro is of course very different! Nfh 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Euro spelled in Cyrillic:discussion about Bulgarian
In Bulgarian the euro will have to be spelled евро (ЕВРО in all caps, pronounced EVRO) and not еуро (ЕУРО in all caps) as indicated in the article. The bulgarian У is different from the greek Υ or the lattin Y. --Ikonact 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[incivil comment deleted]


 * Hey, DO NOT BE SHOCKED :-) I'M NOT CLAIMING. I'm just presenting the facts. As a chapter about the name in bulgarian exists, it has to be correct. If this is not important... just delete it. But if it is there it should be correct. --Ikonact 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ikonact, what exactly is the difference between Cyrillic У and Greek Y or Latin U? As far as I know Cyrillic У is officially transliterated into Latin as U, and if EU insists on using the name “EURO” (not “EVRO” or some other variant in any European language, no matter if it is in accordance with the rules of the language or not), then what is wrong with ЕУРО? If any variant in any European language written in Latin alphabet is not allowed, then should the Bulgarian variant be allowed just because it is written in an alphabet which is not used for the majority of EU languages? --85.97.117.160 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the Greek read it as evro. Just like they read auto as avto or afto [someone please put the IPA stuff here]. Got it now ?24.203.68.10 (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot more Europeans use Cyrillic than use Greek, yet we have the name in Greek spelling and writing. Enough wit the speculation.  Wait to see what is negotiated. --Red King 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Yoyo thing
Right, could someone else in Ireland please speak up if they have ever heard an actual person say "yoyos" without it being in some way connected to those first Jamster ads that used to say it, cause it keeps getting added that a "few" say it, but like I said: I've never heard someone say it without being a reference of some sort to that Jamster ad. - RHe  odt  09:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I have never heard anyone actually say yoyo, which is why I wrote the text "some people play at saying yoyo". But no one does. Evertype 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually use yoyo for euro fairly often - 22:59 04/10/2007
 * Gosh. You're an anonymous user with no other edits, too. -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly used. However one yoyo, transforms to yoyos in plural form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.15.151 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thank goodness for that sanity. Euro, euros. Yoyo, yoyos. Perfectly natural. By the way, I can confirm that in my local pub in Mayo a youngster was heard saying yoyos. -- Evertype·✆ 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

writing and speech
Although the title suggests the article is about linguistic issues, it focuses on orthography. Although words' written forms are of linguistic interest, to talk linguistically is to deal also with the spoken form. There is only a tenuous link between written and spoken forms. Mention might be made that, in certain languages, the initial sound in euro is not any of those commonly associated with the letter E. Cases in point are English and German; some would suggest the first sound in English euro is a consonant. In English, the adding of an S to euro to pluralise it doesn't actually mean that speakers use the sound normally associated with that letter but, rather, the sound normally associated with Z. In German, S is sometimes used to pluralise words of non-German origin such as Bueros and Kinos. It is also used to pluralise abbreviations such as LKWs.

Also, the pluralising of the word in French by adding an S would not normally affect pronunciation any more than if pluralisation in that language were done with a T. It may also be relevant to point out that the Italian form is tri-syllabic. One therefore has a word which may be spelled similarly in several languages yet which is pronounced differently among them. This can be contrasted with Coca-Cola which, while it may not obey orthographic rules in many non-English languages, tends to be pronounced the same everywhere (though with differences in accent). We thus have, in euro, a word which is supposed simultaneously to be international (and therefore translingual) yet which most language-communities insist on pronouncing (and sometimes inflecting) as though it were a homegrown word. This may be because, while the word is neologistic (at least in terms of referring to a currency), it is recognisable as part of a natural word in most if not all the languages in which it is used.
 * If I can just add to mine above, the speech/writing distinction (one of the most important ones in linguistics) isn't just a problem in many of these comments, but it's also a problem for the founding fathers. They decided how to write the word and then left it to various nations to decide how to say and inflect it. A British pound is no less a pound for being called a Pfund in German or a livre in French. If the founding fathers had wanted true standardisation, they may have decided on how the word was to be pronounced and then left it to the languages to decide how to write it. After all, the currency also has a standard orthography in terms of its symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

phonetic representation
In some case, letters are placed in square brackets. This convention implies a narrow phonetic transcription but I doubt that those instances are. In the entry on Finnish we are told that the pronunciation is [euro] and I wonder if this is accurate. It is unlikely to be a narrow transcription and it implies that the word is tri-syllabic, as in Italian. (above text was writen by 217.206.112.162 on June 13)
 * Actually the Finns do pronounce it tri-syllabic. I'm swedish and don't know Finnish, but I don't think [euro] is far from their pronounciation. The text "The pronunciation is [euro]." was written by User:Vuo on 28 February, who writes on his user page "I'm a Finnish guy, studying chemical technology." /BIL 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading the discussion page of User:Vuo, one can see that he knows about language science, so he probably knew what he wrote. /BIL 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

'Euros' in Portuguese
The article currently states:

"Five euros are still called conto de reis or just conto"

I believe this is an untrue generalization. It does happen with older citizens, particularly the ones with less schooling, who

(1) Have difficulty doing the mental conversions necessary to establish how much something really costs, and

(2) Have some difficulty changing the habits of a lifetime. (Old dogs and new tricks, and all that.)

However, these people don't "call" 5€ "1 conto de reis" (they very often don't know that the two are analogous) - they merely speak of 1 conto de reis and leave it down to you to do the math and convert it to euros. 83.132.98.149 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. No one calls a 5-euro note a one conto note; it's a 5-euro note that just happens to be worth one conto after being converted to the old currency. Well caught! --maf 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic issues: German
Hi! Some thoughts on the German linguistic issues concerning the euro: The word Sechser actually is not used in Germany. Okay, perhaps in some very ... very rural parts of some rural parts. The word Eumeln is likely to come from one of the various names for the new currency that have been in discussion in the 90s: EUMEL = European Monetary Election. The proposal was rejected due to German and Austrian concerns about the extremly silly sounding of that word in German. Henning Blatt 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "sent" is now the common form when people talk about cents. I've sometimes heard "pfennig(e)" as well. 77.128.247.69 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Only some older people who never learned English say sometimes "tsent". Today's standard in common use is "sent". For the euro coin the english pronounciation wasn't applied. It's pronounced euro with "oi" like oil.
 * Not right - I frequently hear "tsent" similar to the pronounciation of "centimeter" - also by younger people who are fluent in English (including my humble self). As for Pfennig(e), I never ever heard anyone saying this word instead of Cent. Christoph Scholz (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, I wonder, do you think that the cent in the euro-cent or in centimetre is somehow English? If anything it's an import to English and how English-speakers say it is surely irrelevant to how German-speakers might. The euro was created in writing, leaving the rest of us to decide how to say it. The same must surely apply to cent. In German, c is /ts/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point is that the people generally use "Euro" for singular and plural. The plural -s to be used for Euro sounds weird to Germans as the word Dollars does.
 * The euro-dollar or eurodollar is quite often used by business people for a future currency in which the euro and dollar are combined like e.g. D-Mark, French Francs and dutch guilder were in the euro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.206.2 (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the locked exchange rate of €1 = 1.95583DM, it must have been impossible for retailers to camouflage price increases. Examples: 0.99DM = €0.51 - price of a chocolate bar - either round down to €0.49 or go to €0.55 where the price hike is very obvious 5.00DM = €2.56 - price of 1 liter of water in Frankfurt airport - actually rounded down to €2.50. As you can see, one could get roughly the price in euro by dividing the price in mark by 2. No calculators were needed. We are talking of Germany where at the tobacco stores in 1996 a 19-cigarette pack of HB sold for 4.65DM and at the vending machines a 21-cigarette pack of the same brand sold for 5.-DM. (I'm not a smoker, my uncle was, and I'm trying to show that the companies give you exactly what you paid for whereas in other countries this is not the case.) The retailers could easily camouflage price increases if the euro was worth a bit more than two mark. They'd divide by two and get the difference when in fact they divided by two and lost the difference. For this reason, I will remove the allegations of retailers camouflaging price increases. Q43 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * well, there was a big problem for retailers. One need to know that consumer goods prices in Germany are among the lowest within developped countries. Therefore the margin for many products are extremely low. Combined with the psychologic price barriers (0.99 € "sounds" significantly cheaper than 1.00 €) a problem arised for retailers. 0.99 DM became 0.51 € and the retailer had to decide to bring the price down to 0.49 € (which could lower the margin to subzero in some cases) or put it up to 0.54 € or 0.55 €. The latter happend often due to low margins. The people dubbled the price in their mind while shopping to 1.10 DM and saw a price rise of more than 10%. That's why the name teuro developped, consisting of the german word for expensive (teuer) and euro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.206.2 (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have something to say on this matter. But what does it have to do with linguistic issues? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanian "euroi"
I don't think the romanian "euroi" is important enough to deserve such a substantial paragraph. It's not a linguistic *issue* anyway. It's just a term certain kinds of people would use. Evilone 21:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually we (Romanians) think it deserves more:
 * When speaking in a familiar/vernacular setting, most speakers would make the informal plural "euroi" (not seen as academic, and not used offically; its stylistic value/connotation is less than "bucks" for USD or "quid" for GBP in English and way lower then the almost everyday use of "piasse"(piastre, with the cent called "sou") for CAD in Canadian French).The USD also has a nick-name (the word "para"/"parai" of Turkish origin) with the same negative stylistic value. Not to be confused with general nick-names for money in general (like the old plural "parale" which just means money) or unclear nick-names for foreign currencies (e.g."coco" - The specific currency is supposed to be inferred by the listener from previous info/conversation or from the country the speakers are in).
 * One could also mention the ancestral significance of BWP to the Romanian language. [do your research for this one]. However, more often than not, replying to "Got any money?" with the official P name for BWP would mean "none whatsoever".
 * By the way, does anyone have a page with nick-names for currencies ? (buck, quid, dough, smackers, piasse, sou, euroi, parai/para, dulău/dulăi, BWP ......) 24.203.68.10 (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "euro" in Norwegian
I don't know IPA, but in Norwegian, "euro" is pronounced in two ways; "øuro" (most people I know) and "ævro" (which is used mostly in southern end of the country (I think)). I dunno how to incorporate this into the article, so if you're Norwegian and you know IPA, please help! κаллэмакс 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure "øu" is pronounced as a diphtong? 惑乱 分からん 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is so. -- BIL 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

French
This edit:  was done on the basis that the information is POV. It is not POV just because the information has relevance for a debate about English (which I have never been part of). In fact, the fact that this straughtforward piece of information might have relevance for some debate is a good reason to incluse it, and after all, this whole page is essentially about the natural/invariable issue. The information that the plural in French euros is the natural plural is not obvious for someone who doesn't know French (they might think it was euroi, euron, or something else, or that euros had been chosen to sound English or something.) I did not originally put that information there, but I think it should be there, so I'm reverting the change. Joeldl 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it's NPOV, it seems unnecessary and irrelevant. I think it would only be interesting to mention if it was a non-natural form. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because there is controversy about the English plural and it sheds light on what's been done in other languages. If it were not natural, that would be noted too. Joeldl 15:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant because not everyone speaks French, and this article, after all, is about the linguistic. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says that in France, the informal word balles "still means francs rather than euros". My experience from living in Paris is that people use it to mean euros. I'm not French so I won't edit, but perhaps a French person would like to, if I'm right. 158.109.1.15 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I'm french, for me "balles" means "francs" so i don't use it, but I don't live in paris. So maybe parisians are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fol2choco (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in the summary that the usage "3€14" is extremely common in France, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.61.95 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation
In the "Bulgarian" section it currently says:
 * "The ECB and the EU Commission have insisted that Bulgaria change the official name of the currency from ЕВРО to ЕУРО, claiming the currency should have a standard spelling and pronunciation across the EU."

"Standard pronunciation"? Where's that "standard pronunciation" used? Is the "standard pronunciation" the French pronunciation, the Italian pronunciation, the German pronunciation, the English pronunciation or any of the other pronunciations of the word "euro"? If they want to use the same pronunciation as somewhere else, there's no problem with "ЕВРО": that's how it's pronounced in Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere. (Stefan2 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
 * The ECB probably wants only standard spelling so they don't have to print so many versions on the banknotes. There can't be a standard pronunciation, every language has more or less their own pronunciation, or even two. -- BIL 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure but the Bulgarian version will be in Cyrillic so it can't be standard in terms of Roman or Greek orthography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link
It says: "the s-less plural of euro was not a "natural" borrowing[dubious — see talk page]"

The link doesn't point at the correct discussison. (Stefan2 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Ireland
Concerning Ireland, this is either very out of date*, or biased.

I know but a handful of people who say "euros" and "cents"**, and I have yet to meet a single person who complains about the plural being "euro" and "cent"*** - in fact it has been quite the opposite, I have witnessed people using "euros" and "cents" being criticised on several occasions. Therefore I see it unfit to say "Many people in Ireland... use the natural plurals euros and cents", as this is wholly impossible to prove, as well as the fact that in different regions, such as in the more rural areas where they use +s plurals (as well as referring to the euro as the Pound accidentally, though frequently, five years after its introduction) in comparison to city regions where the s-less plural is used more often. In my experience, as I have already stated, I have found the s-less plurals to be far more common - regardless of actual fact, it is impossible to prove, and am thus adding a tag of verification, as well as the request that it is either phrased more neutrally - such as the difference in regions and people, or it be deleted. I will not delete it, to allow free discussion on this first.

Also in Northern Ireland it is different, using more the +s plurals as influenced by the UK, and British advertising.


 * I have also noted that through the years the +s plural has been lessoning in popularity, whether this is by influence of Irish advertising, the news, the coins/notes themselves or society's general acceptance of the s-less plurals, I don't know.


 * These are the people who say "You can use both, and it doesn't matter", and tend to now and then switch between both.


 * Thinking about it, I have rarely, if ever, heard a cashier use the +s plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.17.174 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt very many people here at all at all use "euros" rather than "euro" these days. However, we do not have any existing studies on usage to reference, so I really suggest that the existing unreferenced biased commentary (and likely out-of-date and/or in error) be stripped out. zoney &#09827; talk 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I also believe this should the article be ammended to reflect this - Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.15.151 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. See  above for a a clear explanation of how we got here.  Whilst it is true that it seems likely that the majority of the population follow the lead given by RTÉ to mangle the language, it is not true that it is universal.   Nor is it true that those who continue to use gramatically correct structures are a negligible minority.  So, in the absence of citable data and to comply with WP:Undue, both practices must be listed though I accept that ignorant usage should have precedence.  Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. --Red King (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictional language in the list?
There's Esperanto in the list. Including languages of non-EU members is already a stretch, only justified because the language is spoken in the EU or in a country where it is commonly used. But a fictional language? It would make more sense to list the linguistic issues about euro in Japanese than in a fictional language like Esperanto, Klingon or Quenya. --Vuo (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Esperanto is not a "fictional language", it's a "constructed language", note the distinction. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Esperanto certainly isn't a fictional language, but nor is it relevant in any way to this article and I agree with Vuo that it should be removed. JdeJ (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Esperanto has european origin and is used by over 1 000 000 people in Europe alone. Also, a number of books (100 000) and magazines (at least 1000, to be checked) are being published in Europe. It is also, along with Interlingua, being considered a new worklanguage for Europe. It is relevant in my opinion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.32.204 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Is it anyone's first language, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Euros in Ireland
I won't accept blanket statements about "most people" saying "euro and cent" because there is no census about this, and because I hear people saying "euros and cents" every day. If you want a new paragraph in this section about what you think current usage is, please draft it here on the Talk page where we can debate it, as the topic is clearly controversial. I have been studying this sociolinguistic phenomenon from the beginning. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Might your findings on common s plural usage be related to the fact that you live in Mayo and be perhaps isolated to more marginalised areas of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.15.151 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They might not. In the run-up to the introduction of the euro I lived in Dublin and was in contact with the Euro Changeover Board. And since moving to Mayo I have not been confined there and have not been isolated. I have studied this linguistic phenomenon closely from the very beginning. -- Evertype·✆ 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the section reads as little more than musings and hearsay at present. No doubt there isn't an authoritative source, as who has really studied usage in all parts of the country? Perhaps someone has studied media usage, if so, that could be referenced and left in. However, the current essay should be removed; it's not *even* original research. It's little more than what someone thinks, and may or may not be true.
 * I'd smack on that template for lack of references, but I'm one of those people that think it's rather crude to have such templates in the article space at all. In general, I am against needless inline citations as well (prefer general references at end of page). I'd just like some trustworthy information in this case rather than made-up "general knowledge". zoney &#09827; talk 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Austrian symbol usage
I added an extra line in the table for German/Austria and German/Germany. Common usage in Germany is 3,14€, whereas common usage in Austria ia €3,14. samwaltz (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eurodimes
Is there any consistent usage for ten-cent increments when written in decimal notation? I've seen three-and-a-half Euro expressed quite frequently on menus, etc., as €3,5, rather than €3,50. Any mathematician would certainly accept the form as standard. Mostly, I observed the practice in Austria (especially Vienna), and was wondering if anyone had seen a similar standard elsewhere. Once we develop a discussion on the topic, I'd recommend tweaking the €3,14 table to €3,20, so that we can see which countries use which format. Cheers, samwaltz (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We would have to have both in that case (3,14 and 3,20, since the special case of multiples of ten cents is exactly that - special.  Also, do we have a link to decimal point? --Red King (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would certainly always be written €3.20 in Ireland Jamesnp (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)*


 * I have seen it sporadically in French texts. I would guess it is a result of the relative novelty for many nations to have to deal with subunits again so frequently. I doubt it is truly the norm anywhere. -- SergioGeorgini (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary table?
There should be a table that summarizes the vitals: --Vuo (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * use of € sign, e.g. 10,00 €, €10.00
 * spelling of "euro", e.g. euro, Euro, ευρώ
 * form with numeral, e.g. 10 euroa (partitive singular), 10 euro (immutable plural)
 * spelling of "cent", e.g. cent, sentti, λεπτό (lepto)
 * form with numeral, e.g. 10 senttiä (partitive singular)
 * vernacular forms (new and old+recycled, with plurals. Include discussions on 1 euro, 2 euro(s), 3 quid[ no s], 1 para, 2 para or 2 parai, 1 coco, 2 coco) <-- 24.203.68.10 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * anything else?
 * You have a point, that would be a lot more organized. Anybody care to make a test table? SergioGeorgini (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it uses the plurals euros and cents (since the table is not a piece of legislation) it would be fine. -- Evertype·✆ 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's going to be in the main text space (not in the margin due to its size) the pronunciation (IPA) could also be included. --Vuo (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Basic test table constructed on the right - I borrowed the existing one and added columns. Feel free to play with it since I'm sure this isn't the best we can come up with. I don't speak everyone's languages, so I've probably fouled up those somewhere along the way at any rate. Pfainuk talk 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very big. And where "official" forms are found alongside "natural forms" some distinction should be made. An asterisk? -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - the table should be definitely in there making the article much shorter. Further remark: there is no "Cypriot language"... Christoph Scholz (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The table as I propose:


 * 1 partitive singular

--Vuo (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbol placement, official vs. current usage
I dispute the placement of the euro symbol in the table for Italian, and possibly other languages.

The "official" rule states that the positioning for the euro symbol should be after the number for all languages except English. The EU text is:

http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm

"In English texts, the ISO code ‘EUR’ (or the euro sign) is followed by a fixed space and the amount. In all other official EU languages the order is reversed; the amount is followed by a fixed space and the ISO code ‘EUR’ or the euro sign."

In spite of that in Italy, and I believe in other countries, there is no definite consensus on the placement. In everyday life, I observe most frequently the euro symbol placed *before* the number, following the convention previously used for Italian Lire symbol: L.12.000 -> €6,20.

During a recent trip to Germany, I also observed both forms being used, sometimes side by side.

This is another case in which "official" and current usage may differ, as for the Euro vs Euros plural form. We should decide if we are interested in the official rule (in which case the table makes no sense, as it can be substituted by one line of text as per the EU official usage), or in the concrete, possibly inconsistent usage by people in daily life.

I would advocate the latter, with a mention of the official rule in the text.

98.212.13.76 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There only can be an "official" usage in member states of the EU, and even for members not participating in the euro, this is doubtful. I would like to section the article and table accordingly in three sections: 1 euro countries, 2 non-euro EU countries, 3 non-EU countries. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, that site you linked to is -- pardon my bluntness -- absolute nonsense, as was discussed in the Euro sign article. Upon introducing the euro, the EU had a very bizarre and naive idea of how this sign would be used that has absolutely nothing to do with what has actually happened since 2002. (For instance: they thought typographers would not create custom euro signs for their fonts, and that everyone would use "USD" and "GBP" instead of $ and £ because they had said so.)


 * In reality, this is more of a linguistic issue than a Eurocratic one. I believe the Académie francaise (the French authority on language) has stated "12,88 €" is the correct form in French usage, even though "12€88" and "€12,88" (to a lesser extent) are seen in everyday life. The point is, that, the French have taken seriously; not what the EU has to say on the subject. Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Nederlandse Taalunie (the leading authority on the Dutch language) has stated "€ 12,88" is the correct form for Dutch usage, coinciding with "ƒ 12,88" for their previous currency. And this is the way virtually everyone uses it. So just like the "euro" versus "euros" plural issue, this is a linguistic matter. Whether anything is "official" depends on how nations handle their language(s). SergioGeorgini (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this comment neutral
"and because Irish broadcasters took their cue from the Department, the "legislative plurals" tend to also be used "

I don't think that this is neutral. I remember when the euro came in and to say "euros" felt strange. I think it just happened that "euro" came to be stronger. for example for me 2 euros = 2 x € 1 and 2 euro = € 2 Limbo-Messiah (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure of article by region
It makes a difference for language development if a term is in common daily use by large groups of people or not. So the countries that actually have the euro as currency might follow another development than countries where the term is only occasionally met. Also, there can be an "official" usage only in member states of the EU, and even for members not participating in the euro, this is doubtful. Therefore I have restructured the article according to familiarity of the euro: &minus;Woodstone (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * countries in the eurozone
 * EU countries not in the eurozone
 * non-EU countries
 * I reverted your change because I disagree with it. I'll get to the reasons for that in a second, but since for the moment there's no consensus one way or the other, I think it would be appropriate for you to revert the article to its previous organization by language.
 * It seems to me that one consulting, for instance, the section on English in Ireland, would be much more interested in comparing the linguistic practices relating to the euro in English in Ireland with practices in English in the UK, the US, Australia, etc. than with practices in German in Germany, for example. The linguistic issues involved are likely to be more similar within one language going from one region to another than within one of your regions from one language to another. It is also interesting to see to what extent countries speaking a single language disagree, and to a large extent this is independent of their status with respect to the euro.
 * There is no reason to send a person seeking information solely about one language, for example English, to different, far-flung areas of the article for all the information on that topic. And it is not particularly bothersome to discuss what is official in each Eurozone country under the language headings.
 * There is obviously some degree of commonality between Eurozone countries in that the ECB has been influential in decisions there. A brief section discussing the ECB across languages is a possibility, with the rest of the article categorized by language.
 * Less importantly perhaps, it is confusing to have "French", "Portuguese", or really any language at all as a subheading of "Eurozone", etc., since there are speakers of all these languages in all three regions (though perhaps not countries having them as official languages, in most cases).
 * I note that currently, "English in the EU outside the Eurozone" does not address actual usage in the UK, but rather offical usage in EU legislation. This is of course relevant to both Ireland and the UK. Do you propose that information of that kind be covered under the Eurozone region or non-EU Eurozone? I believe this kind of dilemma is inevitable with your proposed organization.

Joeldl (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some problems to divide them. The division should be languages not countries. German, French, Italian is spoken and written in Switzerland. Shall we have a section about Switzerland, and a separate about Germany and Austria. Swedish is mainly spoken in Sweden (outside the eurozone) but is also an official language of Finland (in the eurozone). Two sections? What about English principles, divided by Eurozone (Ireland), other EU countries (UK and EU general) and other countries (US and more) ? I see that you have languages as headline, except for English where countries (or group of countries) are headlines. Canada (frenchspeaking) is written about in the Eurozone section. Why? In my opinion, to divide by inside Eurozone/outside Eurozone is relevant only if there was a firm legislation about the name and pronunciation of Euro. It is not, at least not successful. The euro is legislated in a number of countries not in a number of languages. To have a chapter "in the Eurozone" hints that we should divide it by coutries, since the Eurozone is a legal area not a language area, and this legal area is subdivided by countries. It is better to forget the legal division and divide by languages, since this is about lingustic issues, practical usage, not really about the law around the Euro. --BIL (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I VERY MUCH OBJECT to the reorganization of this article by COUNTRY. The matter is a question of LANGUAGE. The English language material in particular is now divided into TWO places where in fact it should be THREE (Ireland, UK, and elsewhere). This whole reorganization is badly conceived and should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect to this issue there is no such thing as THE English language. In Ireland the euro is a live object, its name used in daily speech all the time. In the UK it is a foreign object occasionally met in contact with neighbouring partner countries. In the US it is an abstraction of a far away object, which most ordinary people will never see or use. The linguistic development would be different in all three cases. Similarly for the other languages, the frequency and cicumstances of use of the words are determined more by the country than the language. The organisation by familiarity of the speakers with the words is of far more importance than the alphabetical order of the languages. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Evertype and the others. There are undoubtedly difference between English in Ireland, the UK and the US, but it is not so different as Hiberno-English is from Greek and Irish, where you put them.  Or British English from Danish and Hungarian, or non-European English from Croatian and Hebrew.  Hiberno-English conventions for pluralisation and for slang (for example) are likely, in principle, to be more similar and more relevant to British English conventions than to Greek or Irish-language conventions.


 * That's not to say I object to any re-ordering. Putting the official languages of the European Union first might be a good idea.  But that's as far as it should go, and all parts of all languages should be kept together. Pfainuk talk 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoted statement plainly inaccurate
In the section on English, we find the following quote from EU reference material:


 * Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural ‘s’ (as does ‘cent’): This book costs ten euros and fifty cents.

While the inclusion of this quote is undoubtedly relevant, as it provides a measure of official guidance, I think there is a risk of misleading readers into believing that the subsidiary remark about "any other currency name in English" is accurate, given the seemingly authoritative source for the quote. In fact, for a number of currencies like the yen, the plural does not take an s.

I believe that, in close proximity to the quote, the existence of such zero plurals should be pointed out. I made a first attempt, which was reverted, and then a second, which was rewritten by another editor before being deleted again.

This situation raises the question of principle of what to do when a source which would ordinarily be considered reliable makes a statement that is quite obviously an error, or at least misleading. In most cases it is unreasonable to expect that we can find another source that expressly states that such or such author made an error. In this case, it is enough to open a dictionary to the word yen to establish this for ourselves. Are we to refrain from giving the benefit of this knowledge to our readers? Is warning them of the inaccuracy POV-pushing? Original research? Joeldl (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated issue, but I don't think that talking about the plural of yen twice in this short article is of benefit. Whether the EU Style Guide has an error in it about yen isn't relevant, really. The guidance that book gives is about the plural euros. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the plural of currencies other than the euro is not the main point of the quote. However, since there has been some level of controversy over this topic, readers are likely to be interested in the arguments used one way or the other. The quote begins with an argument, likely intended as justification for the approach taken, that's just wrong. I would be fine with not commenting on the quote if we omit from it the initial, argumentative part about "any other currency". Joeldl (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire section concerning usage in the English language is laboured and leaning towards original research. The manner in which the subject is examined, particularly for Ireland, is entirely arranged to make particular points of opinion. It is quite patronising and "preachy". zoney &#09827; talk 10:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Zoney. I suppose you say this because you like the legislative plural. The section concerning usage in English has to contend with the botched way the word was handled by Ireland, in terms of language planning. All you have to do is compare how it was handled in France, Spain, Portugal, and Malta. It's not POV to report on these historical facts. To fail to do so would only support the folk etymologies which have sprung up to "explain" the anomalous plural. The text -- which has been stable for some time now -- is not original research; it is an accurate record. I know. I was there, talking with the Euro Changeover Board about these issues before the euro replaced the pound. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your position is highly biased, particularly due to your experience in the matter. You presuppose that "language planning" is necessary or important, at least for the English language in Ireland. The text may be largely static, but that is no indicator that it is appropriate. It is unlikely that there are very many Irish readers for this page, much less those who would wish to bother amending the text. As for me, I see no point in amending the text merely for you to restore it back to your preferred editorial. Nevertheless I do feel that I should register my objection. I'm not interested in replacing the section with "folk etymologies" - I would much rather that the section be severely pared down and set out in more general and objective terms. It is not to do with "liking" the legislative plural, it is to do with the fact that the plural form "euro" is used. It is not a valid reason for intellectual disdain of those who use that form, seeing them as some kind of saboteurs of the English language. zoney &#09827; talk 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Language planning could have prevented the mess we have in the English language for this word, yes. Language planning is never a bad thing. McCreevy's department didn't understand the intent of the EC directive; RTÉ did what they thought Finance wanted them to do; when the blunder was pointed out, no action was taken; the Commission's translation section deplores the use of the s-less plural in Ireland. These are serious issues (and none of that is original research, it's all documented). "Paring down" the article to say "both s-less and -s plurals are used in Ireland" would be possible, but it would mislead readers of the English-language Wikipedia as to the origins of the practice. As you rightly note, I will resist attempts to pare down the article. Regarding "disdain": you may not remember, but I certainly do, that everybody balked at the s-less plural when it began to be used on the media here. It goes against the natural expectations of English speakers (and don't quote exceptions like sheep and yen; I remember the balking and the discussion in pubs in Dublin at the time). The only reason it "caught on" was RTÉ's continued broadcasting of it. That's how language change can proliferate. The issue with it in terms of this word is that (1) lots of people in Ireland don't use the s-less plural at all and (2) no English-speaking country outside of Ireland uses the s-less plural at all. All of this constitutes linguistic issues concerning the euro and the article is just fine as it stands. -- Evertype·✆ 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your specific experience does not constitute a reliable indicator for how "everyone" reacted. I can assure you that I recollect not a single instance of anyone "balking". Surely you can see from your own post as to how biased your own position is? zoney &#09827; talk 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, frankly, I do not. It is not my opinion that people balked. It is my observation that they did. Kevin Myers wrote an article in The Irish Times about it. I wrote to the Minister for Finance and received a response from him, as well as from Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament. These external references are cited in the article. If you cannot recollect a single instance of anyone questioning the s-less plural of euro (or for pity's sake, the s-less plural of cent), than I will have to conclude that you were simply not paying attention. (Lots of people don't pay attention. That's why language planning is useful.) Biased? It is true that I deplore the s-less plural of euro and cent. If there hadn't been a misunderstanding of the EC directive on the part of the Irish government, everybody would be saying euros and cents just as in Spain and Portugal and the rest of the English-speaking world. My opinion notwithstanding, the article gives an historically accurate account including information on the result of the lack of language planning. (Compare the explicit language planning which the Maltese employed—in part based on the Irish experience.) -- Evertype·✆ 15:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This quote is still in the article, and the part about "any other currency name in English" is still inaccurate. It's a disservice to readers to leave in the quote without warning them about the inaccuracy. Joeldl (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is. I have indicated that the statement is hyperbole, rather than stupidity on the part of the Directorate-General. -- Evertype·✆ 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to do something about it. I had considered using sic, but then had second thoughts because it seems that - apart from cases in which you're mocking the statement - you're only supposed to use sic to signal to the reader that your transcription of the original is faithful. Since the point being made here is a bit different, sic might not be appropriate. Joeldl (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welsh
I'd expect ewro, pl. ewroedd - but I haven't seen any literature. Not sure about cents, though (ceiniog "penny" is quite similar). 212.137.63.86 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Welsh Academy Dictionary gives: "senten (sentiau) f.; sent(-iau) f. -- Evertype·✆ 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin section cites Wikipedia
Why does the Latin section cite a Wikipedia page? k33l0r (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Old and new texts of the EU style guides re plural of euro in English
The style guide recommendations have changed since 2006. The new text of the recommendation is already quoted verbatim in the article with a citation including a link to the current version.

The new text does not restrict the usage "euros" as it did previously. If in doubt, see the new and old texts below and check the reference.

The old and new versions of the EU style guides are quoted below. The current versions are taken from the Web sites as cited. The older versions are taken from the cited reference (footnote 111 in ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 2 / February/March 2006 The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context), which quotes the old text.

It is evident that any limitation of the recommendation to use the plural form "euros" has been deliberately dropped from the style guide of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation.

The style guide of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation currently says: 20.8 The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural ‘s’ (as does ‘cent’):This book costs ten euros and fifty cents[my emphasis]. However, in documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely,make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount.

The Interinstitutional style guide, (7.3.3. Rules for expressing monetary units  http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm ) currently has a caveat: ''The text in point 7.3.3 is in draft form and is currently being analysed by the institutions. When it has been finalised you will be notified on the News page of this website.'' but has the following note (using "euros" in the plural): When a monetary unit is referred to generally but an amount is not included, it is written in letters, except in tables (see ‘When to use the ISO code (EUR)’):
 * an amount in euros[my emphasis]
 * a sum in pounds sterling

Both the Translation style guide and the Interinstitutional style guide had different texts prior to 2006, as quoted in ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 2 / February/March 2006 The Application of Multilingualism in the European Union Context

Old text (February 2006):

Footnote 111 Translation style guide (20.7) "Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’ " Interinstitutional style guide (7.3.1): "In English, the terms euro and cent are invariable (no plural 's'), notwithstanding the acknowledgement in a footnote that ‘The spelling without an “s” may be seen as departing from usual English practice for currencies’. Notwithstanding that in Italian, German and Greek the words ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are also used in their plural-less form, in most other languages, including French and Spanish, the name of the single currency tends to vary in the plural, both inofficial and in everyday use." --Boson (talk)
 * This is quite a lot of material. Don't you think the article should actually reflect (with specific reference to this material) that the Commission formerly recommended the plural in -s in restricted situations but now recommends it in all situations? -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have added something to that effect. Could perhaps be improved on.--Boson (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have now added some more detail and another reference. It could probably do with some copyediting.--Boson (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro: updated references on spelling rules and recommendations and amended text accordingly
Since a reference given for the spelling of "euro" etc. in the introduction was out of date (citation with a quote reflecting an obsolete version of the style guide), I have updated the references and added some more. I have also changed the text to reflect current recommendations as cited, to avoid contradiction and repetition, and to make the introduction more concise (I may have removed a bit too much, but if anything needs re-adding it might be better in the appropriate section rather than in the intro). I have also removed a dead link from the external links. The new URL is now included in a reference. Also removed from the English section some unsourced reasoning on the reason for invariant plurals.--Boson (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a mistake to lose references to the previous recommendations, as they are relevant to the general question of linguistic issues. -- Evertype·✆ 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have now added a new reference. I removed the old reference because (as I understood it) it quoted the old text but cited the new text.--Boson (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivation for rules on s-less plurals
In relation to the the s-less plural form, the article currently states This practice originally arose out of legislation intended to ensure that the banknotes were uncluttered with a string of plurals. This may well have been one of the reasons, but the main (publicly documented) reason for the spelling rules that I have found seem to relate solely to having one common spelling for the single currency. I may be wrong, but even if we find a reliable, independent source source that mentions having banknotes uncluttered with a string of plurals, I think the statement, as it stands, is an inference rather than a fact.--Boson (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having "one common spelling" serves no purpose except for simplicity in banknotes and coin design. Obviously we couldn't have Cent and Zent and Sent... actually a fair bit of comment was made of the fact that Greek coins have Cent on one side and Λέπτο on the other. In my article I did make reference to this, and compared the "string of plurals" on the Soviet Ruble notes. The text of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 "Whereas ... the European Council furthermore considered that the name of the single currency must be the same in all the official languages of the European Union, taking into account the existence of different alphabets...." means, for instance, that no country can opt out and call it a Ducat or Dollar; it also explains why EURO and ΕΥΡΩ alone appear on the banknotes—that is, it explains why the plural is immutable, since otherwise we might have EUROA and EUROS and EORÓNNA and whatever else on the banknotes—and certainly CENT and CENTS and SENTTIÄ and CEINTEANNA would not fit on the coins. The "inference" is referred to in articles I published in 2001; I can tell you that in the discussions I had with people in Brussels at the time the "inference" was not refuted, though I don't know if some external document on the banknote design will be uncovered. (The bureaucrats have never been very rational about this topic, though see responses I had from the then president of the Union and from the Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission.) To discover the intent of the legislation one must, perhaps, infer, but your point that the reason given seems to be "solely to having one common spelling for the single currency" begs the question as to why that was necessary. There are only two reasons: (1) uncluttered banknote design, and (2) to prevent people saying Pound or Ducat or Ecu or whatever. -- Evertype·✆ 09:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Denonym
The term "Eurozoner" seems to be popping up more and more. Run a google on it and you will see quite a bit of usage. However, it is very much on the side lines, blog usage and forums and some of the results aren't totally in the same meaning. But it seems like the usage is rising (from as far back as 2001), perhaps it is worth of a note on this article at least?

Non Blog and Forum usage:      - J.Logan`t : 11:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Asterisk symbol in the table
The table has some words that are asterisked - at least on the irregular plurals of Irish and English. There is not explanation for the asterisk at the foot of the table among the other footnotes. I have a pretty good guess as to why it is there, but may I suggest that whoever put them there would write some text? --Red King (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Official language"?
I don't understand the leftmost column of the table in the section "Summary". Why would languages like Bulgarian and Danish not be "a national official language of a Eurozone member state"? Somebody please clarify! --Mtu (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I withdraw my question. I get it: Those states are just not in the Eurozone yet! --Mtu (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The main motivation was to distinguish those languages whose speakers identify "euro" as a foreign currency and those that are spoken in significant (native) populations inside the Eurozone. For example, Swedish is spoken as a minority language in Finland, and so, although Sweden is not a part of the Eurozone, there is a large population of Swedish-speakers living in the Eurozone. Another example is Catalan. This distinction is significant because these languages are "in direct contact" with the euro everyday. --vuo (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic issues
This page seems to be more about how various languages say "euro" rather than any "Linguistic issues". How is the euro having a different name in Arabic, Welsh or Cornish an issue? - they'll never be minted in those languages. McLerristarr (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also about how they write it. Surely, pronunciation and spelling are linguistic issues.

Cyprus
I don’t get it. According to table and text, Cyprus uses ευρώ alongside cent. Shouldn’t that be σεντ instead? Anothername (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with either the table or the text. I'm afraid you misread something.—Emil J. 13:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that although Cyprus uses the usual Greek alphabet for ευρώ, "cent" is suddenly written in the Latin alphabet, not in the Greek, which, admittedly, looks strange. --JorisvS (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is indeed wrong and I fixed it. It should be spelled with greek letters, "σεντ". Thats how it is officially written in Cyprus and even informally few use the original spelling utilizing the latin alphabet. --Meidei (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch slang
In the Netherlands, people sometimes use "euri" as a false Latin plural (in most cases to ridicule the currency's name). I have no source, though. 213.46.105.142 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Welsh plural
In the Welsh language, it is spelt ewro, which is...invariable in the plural. Does anyone have any info on this? The Termiadur gives ewros as the plural, and there are numerous examples of this online. Llusiduonbach (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, since nobody knows, I included the plural. Llusiduonbach (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Korean pronunciation
In Korean the Euro is called "Yuro" (유로). The word for Europe in Korean is "Yureop" (유럽). Cent is called "Senteu" (센트). -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)