Posted on 01/10/2006 10:36:09 PM PST by SunkenCiv
At a cabinet meeting in Riga on Tuesday (3 January), Latvian ministers unanimously voted against EU linguistic conformity and for sticking to the "ei" spelling of the euro, set to replace the Latvian lat in 2008... "Euro" is a non-existent word in Latvian, as Latvian grammar and phonetics do not allow for an "eu" diphthong. The European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet in September last year officially objected to the Latvian spelling, arguing that the common currency is the euro and that having a single currency with the same spelling is "frankly natural." The ECB also claims that the Latvian spelling contravenes a 1997 decision by EU leaders that "euro" must be written "euro" in all official languages, with only Greece allowed to opt-out from the decision on the basis that it has a different alphabet... Malta announced last month that it will spell the currency's name "ewro", with Latvian education ministers praising the decision, according to AFP.
(Excerpt) Read more at euobserver.com ...
There doesn't appear to be much unity in the "Union".
I think they're using this to make a point! It's hard to believe that there are no foreign loan-words, including non-local dipthongs, regularly in use in Latvia or Malta.
Just wait 'til Russia joins the EU, and the eurocrats start explaining to them how they'll have to change their language AND alphabet, so as to be able to spell the word "euro" the same way all the eurobots spell it. The Russian language would also be discombobulated by the diphthong "eu", which is no doubt why they spell Europe "Evropa" (pronounced like "yevropa"). But Russia probably has more sense than to join the EU, so I'm afraid we won't be treated to the "but you aren't ALLOWED to call it the 'yevro' battle."
Good points, all. The whole affair reminds me of the apochryphal story regarding London (UK) and its bus system. In the 1970s it got a new manager who made some changes. Soon there were bushels of complaints from people who said the buses drove right by the stop, in some cases the drivers were smiling and waving as they went. The explanation given was, "the drivers can't possibly keep their timetables if they have to stop and pick up passengers." ;')
Good points, all. The whole affair reminds me of the apochryphal story regarding London (UK) and its bus system. In the 1970s it got a new manager who made some changes. Soon there were bushels of complaints from people who said the buses drove right by the stop, in some cases the drivers were smiling and waving as they went. The explanation given was, "the drivers can't possibly keep their timetables if they have to stop and pick up passengers." ;')
Sorry, no idea how that happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.