No, it’s not. If you see that usage in U.S. English it is considered incorrect.
The founding fathers of America were highly familiar with, and very much influenced by, the ancient Roman Republic.
The Roman Capitol Hill was not only the site of the Temple of Jupiter, but the centre of all Roman Republican government. It also housed the Temple of Juno Moneta, where coins were originally minted and stored (giving rise to the English word ‘money’), and the Tabularium, where state records were kept. The Senate also often met in the Temple of Jupiter.
It’s not a coincidence that the United States has a Senate, and that the Capitol building in Washington DC was built in a neo-classical style. The front of the US Supreme Court building is also built to resemble a Roman temple.
Somehow the general view of ancient Rome has changed today, and few people are aware of all the inspiring stories of the Roman Republic, but in the 18th and 19th century every educated person learned Latin and read Roman literature and history as a matter of course. Before the second half of the 20th century the normal view of Rome, especially the Republic, was extremely positive.
No, in the way the building where the legislature meets is.
Using “capitol” to refer to the building the legislature meets in is considered incorrect in U.S. English? Because that’s what I was referring to.
This one drives me batty, too. We have, in US English, a single pronunciation for the concept of “the place where the government meets”. But it has two different spellings, depending on how specific that place is, the city or the building. They should just be regarded as legitimate alternate spellings for the same word, and used interchangeably. They aren’t, I know, but they should be.
They aren’t legitimate alternate spellings for the same word they are homophones.
In this example of pseudogrammarian/historian latinophiles mixed with some French.
Consider the French forms where it means town hall. E.G. Capitole de Toulouse where the seigneurs du Capitole meet
Capital or principal would probably have been avoided simply due to the implication to someone trying to found a confederation.
They could have chosen better though.
Question: “What’s the capital of Canada?”
Answer: “Mostly American”
from a 1970’s National Lampoon magazine feature about Canada. Don’t ask them how they think you should pronounce Regina.
To rhyme with “fun”, of course!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The distinction in spelling (and originally pronunciation) comes directly from Latin into French and English. It’s not pseudo anything.
Latin:
căpŭt, ĭtis, n. - head
căpĭtālis, -e, adj. - relating to or belonging to the head; relating to life, by which life is endangered; at the head, chief, first in something, pre-eminent
Hence, via medieval Latin and French, ‘capital city’, the city that is the head of the country (i.e. if you consider the whole country as a body, the place where the government is located is the head).
Căpĭtōlĭum , -ii, n. - the Capitol, the temple of Jupiter, at Rome; opp. to the Arx (citadel), and separated from it by the Intermontium. In a more extended sense, the whole hill (hence called Mons or Clivus Capitolinus), including the temple and citadel, separated from the Palatine Hill by the Forum Romanum.
Căpĭtōlīnus, a, um, adj. - of or pertaining to the Capitol, Capitoline
The two Latin words probably have the same origin, but the distinction in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning is present even in fairly early Latin.
In English the pronunciation is similar, but in Latin it is very different - a long ā in one and a long ō in the other.
Right, it’s not even really the same pronunciation, depending on your accent/dialect.
But I think by “pseudo” he was referring to those who believe it should conceptually be the same word.
I still remain puzzled by the persistent confusion, anyway.
This. So This.
I don’t care about Latin, we don’t speak Latin.
No, but you write it.
Approximately half the words in the English language are derived from Latin (often via French).
This thread is about why ‘capital’ and ‘Capitol’ are different, and the answer is directly due to Latin - and to Jefferson, Washington et al. who knew Latin, and chose to make a reference to the Roman Capitol in naming the seat of American government.
I write standard (Americanized) English which is partly derived from Latin using mostly Latin letters.
I took Latin in HS. I am still scarred to this day. My teacher was pretty opinionated that I didn’t write it.
Good point, I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that just because they were different in Latin doesn’t mean they should stay different. We, the users of the language are entitled to make the language better (or worse), not to do something just because of a historical dead language precedent.
Right. It’s just the [del]principal[/del] principle of the thing.
OP may be sufficiently competent at reading such that he doesn’t look at individual letters while reading. Not everyone is, apparently.
Except that they are already different in most of the English-speaking world (indeed “capitol” as a building serving as the seat of government is AFAIK a US usage only). Do it your own way if you please, but don’t be surprised if the rest of the Anglosphere thinks you’ve got it wrong.
Sure, but this would be an example of making it worse. Right now you’ve got two different words which mean two different things -(A) of or pertaining to the head; principal; important and (B) the building that houses a legislature. The words have similar spellings because of a distant common root. If you make the words interchangeable there’s a loss of precision; you no longer have a word that means “legislative building”. Which, fine, you can probably get by without; most variants of English lack such a word. But in that case the word “capitol” adds no value at all; it’s just a variant spelling of “capital”. And variant spellings are a nuisance.
Well, a teacher once corrected me when I wrote “capitol punishment” in a discussion about the death penalty and said something about - “nope, not the political seat” or to that effect - I think it’s where I confused it with the city outright…also, I think I HAVE seen some instances of “capitol city” or “---- is the capitol of —” which made me think that was the correct one.